Capitalist Fundamentalism : The Dual Danger Of Libertarian Economics

109 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-06-17 21:57

leftypopulist

For clarity, I'd like to focus strictly on Libertarian *economic* policy. The rigid, dogmatic belief in absolute, unfettered Laissez-Faire Capitalism. While their social policies and foreign policies are nominally progressive/humanitarian, they do a total pro-Von Mises / pro-Austrian School disconnect WRT all things related to economic policy.

75% of US presidents have been Republican. The rest, Democrat. The US (and Canada) is now a 2-party monopoly of rightwing Neo-Liberalism and rightwing Neo-Conservatism. Partly because of this, many are cynical of the role of federal government. Many dismiss the role entirely, as if government is permanently and inherently evil. But they are basing their sweeping attempt at federal government invalidation BASED on the precise effects of Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberal policy. How many Presidents (or Prime Ministers) have been progressive social democrats or progressive democratic socialists ? 0. How many times has the NDP formed Federal Government ? 0. How many times have the policies of Kucinich (or his equivalent) been implemented in the US ? Never. North America is a haven of rightwing economic policy insanity.

But the Libertarians and diehard Capitalists decry North America as "not capitalist", almost religiously. To counter that, let's just measure the after loophole annual personal income tax rate US Billionaires have paid over the last 30 years and measure the percentage of industry which is nationalized (since 1980). Then, factor in how much of tax revenue is redistributed to the poor. The fact is the US is 85-90% capitalist. All economic barometers point to this. So for Libertarians and diehard capitalists to say the damage in the US economy is due to socialism or a left-leaning federal government is obviously false. It's due to a predominantly capitalist system. If the egg you fry is burning on a stove top set to 8/10, you don't say "If only I would have turned it up to maximum, the problem would have been averted".

All barometers and economic indicators point to the reality that the US has been the most capitalist nation in the last 30 years (in the western, industrialized first world context), and the statistical manifestations found re: child poverty rates, infant mortality rates, education outcomes, life expectancy, personal bankruptcy rates, homicide rates, incarceration rates, etc. clearly prove that the more economically capitalist the system is, the more it punishes the bottom 1/3rd of income earners. Those stats are far more favorable in countries which have actually HAD some social democratic federal governance, and the policies of Layton & Kucinich applied nationally (Norway, France, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, etc.).

So, the danger of Libertarian economics are 2-fold. They serve and embolden the top 10% of wealth earners even more rigidly than is now the case in North America (causing even more child povery, bankruptcy, and general falling through the cracks) .... AND ... they spread a very dismissive attitude towards any notion of *good* federal government policies. If you happen to see Ron or Rand (as in Ayn Rand) Paul and hear their constant looping of "I don't think it's the federal government's role to be involved .... government is evil...", then you'll notice the religious, dogmatic, circular dismissivity.

It should be noted that there are really only 2 institutions of big power in a society : business and government. We know that business and the free market do not embrace or employ things or ideas which are non-profitable humanitarian ventures, so that leaves only the government as the remaining powerful social institution which can help people's lives. We can rule out all Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative politicians as providing any relief, yet somehow they keep sustaining their political monopoly over all of North America. Only a different set of federal policies can address the adverse effects of decades of rightwing, pro-capitalist North American government.

Please, vent your anti-Laissez-Faire-Capitalism views here.

Thu, 2010-06-17 21:59

N.Beltov

See CCPA.

Fri, 2010-06-18 20:15

leftypopulist

That's a great site for current issues, but I specifically wanted to hear from babblers who have precise denunciations of Ludwig Von Mises Economics and his followers (Ayn Rand Objectivists, Ron Paul Libertarians).

Fri, 2010-06-18 21:41

absentia

What, like philosophy? In that case, define, in one sentence each, the precepts of the Austrian School and the Libertarian School.

I've never heard of the first before. If you like, here is my take on the second: Everybody does whatever the hell they like, and the outcome, whatever the hell it is, will be the right thing. Ayn Rand's explanations sounded pretty good if you were stoned or inattentive enough, except for the bits about inherited wealth and inherited poverty...

Really, though, no economic system is organized according to a philosophy or set of principles: that shit comes after, to explain, legitimize, excuse and obfuscate a pyramid scheme. Of-bloody-course it's no good for most of the people: it was never intended to serve them! Nor can it be sustained.

Reduce any theory to basic principles, build a simple model, and you can readily see whether it will work or not.

Fri, 2010-06-18 23:31

Fidel

Earlier market socialists said that laissez-capitalism, neoliberal ideology's predecessor, was not very scientific. I agree with that general idea. Neoliberalism describes the model human acting within the economy as that of a self-interested, one-dimensional person who seeks to satisfy only his material needs and desires. Neoliberalism does try to address accounting for things that were never valued before under laissez-faire ideology, but their ideas are wholly inadequate. Markets are very good at distributing goods and services and for concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few - socialists aren't denying these things. But neoliberalism is inherently undemocratic, and this is obvious since the Nixon-Pinochet era of the 1970s. Canada has experienced creeping neoliberalism since 1975, and today Canadians are mired in personal debt while provinces and municipalities can't afford to pay for badly needed infrastructure among other things. We are being led and bred toward thinking in terms of markets as the only alternative solutions to these fiscal and monetary problems at the root of neoliberal ideology.

Sat, 2010-06-19 13:40

ygtbk

If you actually want to understand libertarians rather than caricaturing them, you might want to read Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia". He's more cogent than Ayn Rand or Ron Paul.

Sat, 2010-06-19 14:07

Fidel

I'l rush out and buy it. Sounds like a page turner.

Sat, 2010-06-19 14:25

ygtbk

Good stuff! Here's the URL for Amazon.ca:

http://www.amazon.ca/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276971889&sr=1-1

Sat, 2010-06-19 14:27

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

amazon.ca is part of the problem, not the solution.

Sat, 2010-06-19 14:43

#10

angrymonkey

And then to balance that out

criticism

Sat, 2010-06-19 15:39

#11

ygtbk

angrymonkey wrote:

And then to balance that out

criticism

The Hammerton essay is very unconvincing, since he doesn't seem to understand what either coercion or freedom actually means. The rest of the links may be better.

Sat, 2010-06-19 15:39

#12

ygtbk

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

amazon.ca is part of the problem, not the solution.

Which problem?

Sat, 2010-06-19 17:10

#13

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

If you have to ask, one wonders why you're posting rather than reading and learning.

Sat, 2010-06-19 17:24

#14

Durrutix

You might be interested in my article Ayn Rand in Uganda, published in Dissident Voice and reprinted on babble a month or two ago. The comments also contain alot of additional commentary:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/ayn-rand-in-uganda-2/

Sat, 2010-06-19 17:36

#15

ygtbk

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

If you have to ask, one wonders why you're posting rather than reading and learning.

Please enlighten me.

Sat, 2010-06-19 17:49

#16

500_Apples

LTJ, are you just referring to amazon.ca out of habit or is it somehow different than amazon.com ?

Sat, 2010-06-19 17:52

#17

500_Apples

leftypopulist,

The key problem with libertarian economic logic, among other problems, is that there is no such thing as a free market, there never has been and there never will be. They want a society where money is power, but where power is never abused. For example they'll tell you corporations wouldn't be able to abuse you because you'd be able to litigate against them.

Sat, 2010-06-19 18:21

#18

leftypopulist

absentia wrote:

Reduce any theory to basic principles, build a simple model, and you can readily see whether it will work or not.

They have their hardened philosophical dogma and slogans, and they don't care what the negative effects are. Science (especially, measurement and observation of the experiment) is disregarded in favor of "Gov't economic interference in the divine free market is evil".

Sat, 2010-06-19 18:26

#19

leftypopulist

Fidel wrote:

I agree with that general idea. Neoliberalism describes the model human acting within the economy as that of a self-interested, one-dimensional person who seeks to satisfy only his material needs and desires.

Capitalist Fundamentalists view the whopping 10-20% Neoliberal income tax rate applied to billionaires as evil socialism, when in reality it's a predominantly capitalistic configuration.

Sat, 2010-06-19 18:28

#20

leftypopulist

ygtbk wrote:

If you actually want to understand libertarians rather than caricaturing them, you might want to read Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia". He's more cogent than Ayn Rand or Ron Paul.

Maybe you can study 'no taxes for the rich, no infrastructure for the poor' Haiti while you're falsely characterizing our synopsis as a caricature ?

Sat, 2010-06-19 18:29

#21

leftypopulist

Fidel wrote:

I'l rush out and buy it. Sounds like a page turner.

I'll save you the time and money.

"The free market heals all wounds and gov't is inherently evil and destructive."

Sat, 2010-06-19 18:35

#22

leftypopulist

ygtbk wrote:

angrymonkey wrote:

And then to balance that out

criticism

The Hammerton essay is very unconvincing, since he doesn't seem to understand what either coercion or freedom actually means. The rest of the links may be better.

You don't comprehend the fact that money is power, and Bill Gates has an unlimited means for avoiding the effects of extreme poverty. Heck, he can buy his own island and private militia. When someone starves (as happens millions of times per year), the destructive cellular force is much more malicious than the force a Billionaire endures when he is limited to 5 yachts by a high tax rate imposed by the 'inherently evil' federal gov't. Compare the rates of poverty and hunger in the US with those in more socialistic Scandinavia and Northern Europe.

Sat, 2010-06-19 20:12

#23

ygtbk

leftypopulist wrote:
ygtbk wrote:

angrymonkey wrote:

And then to balance that out

criticism

The Hammerton essay is very unconvincing, since he doesn't seem to understand what either coercion or freedom actually means. The rest of the links may be better.

You don't comprehend the fact that money is power, and Bill Gates has an unlimited means for avoiding the effects of extreme poverty. Heck, he can buy his own island and private militia. When someone starves (as happens millions of times per year), the destructive cellular force is much more malicious than the force a Billionaire endures when he is limited to 5 yachts by a high tax rate imposed by the 'inherently evil' federal gov't. Compare the rates of poverty and hunger in the US with those in more socialistic Scandinavia and Northern Europe.

Have you actually read the Hammerton essay, or are you just ranting?

Since you may be in some kind of emotional zone, this may not work for you. BUT when someone (like Hammerton) makes an equation like "freedom = property", they're clearly failing even the high-school debate team tests of logic. BTW, Bill Gates has probably saved more lives than either you or me.

Sat, 2010-06-19 21:02

#24

No Yards

And he's probably caused more deaths and ruined more lives than you or me as well.

Sat, 2010-06-19 21:20

#25

Durrutix

Some great critiques of "libertarianism" here:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/leftlib.html

Personally I think it's the most absurd of all political ideologies, or at least those that are taken seriously. It is better called "propertyism"; libertarianism originally referred to anarchism. Why it is taken seriously at all is a more interesting question. Chomsky put it thus:

"The American version of “libertarianism” is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: “No, I’m a libertarian, I’m against that tax”—but of course, I’m still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world they describe, it’s a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is world where you don’t have roads because you don’t see a reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you’re not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don’t like the pollution from somebody’s automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It’s a world built on hatred.

The whole thing’s not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn’t function for a second—and if it could, all you’d want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something."

Sat, 2010-06-19 21:39

#26

Doug

A classic response to this sort of thing is from CB Macpherson, Elegant Tombstones: A Note on Friedman's Freedom. Not available free on the web that I could find, but here's a little taste of it.

What distinguishes the capitalist economy from the simple exchange economy is the separation of labor and capital, that is, the existence of a labor force without its own sufficient capital and therefore without a choice as to whether to put its labor in the market or not. Professor Friedman would agree that where there is no choice there is coercion. His attempted demonstration that capitalism coordinates without coercion therefore fails...

I think it's also worth mentioning that the property rights libertarians are so enamoured of are themselves a form of coercion. What makes a property right isn't just that you say something's yours, it's that there's someone else who'll make me give it back or otherwise punish me by force if I attempt to take it.

Sat, 2010-06-19 23:25

#27

leftypopulist

ygtbk wrote:

Since you may be in some kind of emotional zone, this may not work for you. BUT when someone (like Hammerton) makes an equation like "freedom = property", they're clearly failing even the high-school debate team tests of logic. BTW, Bill Gates has probably saved more lives than either you or me.

Since you *may* be a dogmatic piece of Capitalistic crap (or not), I'll explain it to you. Gates could be slapped with a 99% personal income tax rate and still be extremely wealthy. Those funds could then be used to prevent the deaths (due to lack of food, clothing, shelter and medicine because the elite capitalists are hogging the vast majority of international wealth [Gates has as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans]) of millions of poor.

The lack of wealth redistribution CAUSES the mass death. The forced wealth redistribution PREVENTS the mass death. Most here favor extremely progressive taxation, so that the megarich are mega-taxed (at a 50-90% rate) in order to prevent mass death due to lack of accumulated wealth.

The free market system ultimately and inevitably concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands, via ruthless dog eat dog short-term aquisition of capital. You end up with 99% of the wealth in 1% of the hands. The free market doesn't address this (helping the poor survive isn't inherently profitable), and neither does private charity because the more the private charity gives to the poor the less quarterly profits they make, making them less competitive.

All capitalists want pure economic freedom. In the real world / real people zone, this means allowing the rich the FREEDOM to become trillionaires and allowing the poor the FREEDOM to fall through the cracks and perish because they didn't accumulate adequate capital.

It's really quite simple.

When the unfettered greed game becomes the economic system, only the most ruthless and cunning of profiteers survive, becoming megarich, and zero safety net spells mass suffering and death for the bottom 1/3rd of worldwide income earners.

Sat, 2010-06-19 23:29

#28

leftypopulist

No Yards wrote:

And he's probably caused more deaths and ruined more lives than you or me as well.

The degree to which the megarich (billionaires) get to hoard all their wealth is the degree to which poor people worldwide suffer and die.

The degree to which the megarich give up their wealth for redistribution to the poor (for food, clothing, shelter and medicine) is the degree to which the mass death and suffering is alleviated.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (and many Hollywood actors) have explicitly stated they wouldn't mind paying a higher income tax rate, because they have common sense and empathy.

Sat, 2010-06-19 23:35

#29

leftypopulist

Doug wrote:

I think it's also worth mentioning that the property rights libertarians are so enamoured of are themselves a form of coercion.

Money is power. Money is a very powerful force. With enough money, you can buy your own island, militia and enough food to forcefully eliminate starvation.

Extreme poverty shows the inversion of the money=power=force premise. The lack of wealth has extreme cellular force, and causes all cells in the body to be forcibly harmed and destroyed due to lack of food, clothing, shelter and medicine.

The power and force of money is simple and obvious. Hogging vast wealth causes mass death.

Sun, 2010-06-20 11:57

#30

JKR

leftypopulist wrote:

The free market system ultimately and inevitably concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands, via ruthless dog eat dog short-term aquisition of capital. You end up with 99% of the wealth in 1% of the hands. The free market doesn't address this (helping the poor survive isn't inherently profitable), and neither does private charity because the more the private charity gives to the poor the less quarterly profits they make, making them less competitive.

This is why Libertarianism is unfeasible. It would devour itself. Libertarianism, or more accurately described, anarchy, would lead to a society where the top 1% politically and economically dominate society to the detriment of 99% of the population.

You can't have democracy where the vast majority is subservient to an elite minority. So if libertarianism were to ever have a chance of succeeding, it would have to annihilate democracy.

Wherever there is some semblance of democracy, anarchy is out of the question.

And where higher levels of democracy exist, social democracy has followed. Countries that have relatively higher levels of democracy are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, etc..... All social democratic countries. It's not a coincidence that these countries all use proportional representation (PR). PR allows for greater democracy as minorities are able to gain fairer representation.

But social democratic countries could probably be more democratic. So social democracy might not be the be all and end all.

Sun, 2010-06-20 13:08

#31

absentia

Durrutix did a pretty good axe-job, including yet another cute libertarian self-contradiction

Quote:
if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it.

This presupposes the availability of materials, equipment and learned skill-sets - without providing for the social infrasctructure that would produce any of those things. The punch-line is "litigate": presupposes a functioning legal system, built and maintained by.... uh...?

leftypopulist was even more thorough. Nicely summarized! Seems like everything the freedom-loving types want depends on enforcement of property rights by a government - that the rest of us pay for. If not so, then the hereditary and speculative (that is: physically inconsequential) jillionnaires have to hire armed thugs to protect them. (Oh, they have!) And, without societally respected and enforced laws, what's to stop the hired thugs from turning on the jillionnaires and taking their stuff? (Not yet? Wait a bit.)

Wouldn't it be funny if the Tea Party started chanting "No representation without taxation!" ?

Sun, 2010-06-20 13:59

#32

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

leftypopulist wrote:
Doug wrote:

I think it's also worth mentioning that the property rights libertarians are so enamoured of are themselves a form of coercion.
Money is power. Money is a very powerful force. With enough money, you can buy your own island, militia and enough food to forcefully eliminate starvation. Extreme poverty shows the inversion of the money=power=force premise. The lack of wealth has extreme cellular force, and causes all cells in the body to be forcibly harmed and destroyed due to lack of food, clothing, shelter and medicine. The power and force of money is simple and obvious. Hogging vast wealth causes mass death.

But money is not wealth. This is the fundamental starting off point that renders both right and left wing economic ideology fatally flawed.

Let me put it this way, for all the money and power that Bill Gates holds, he can't own a dodo bird. They are extinct. Money can't purchase that which has been destroyed to create money. Money is a representation of artificial wealth. It is not power. It represents the illusion of power by a society that consensually grants money an authority it doesn't hold in the real world.

As long as we believe, on the left and the right, that wealth is purchasing power within a fenced and undemocratic coporately controlled environment where wants and needs are defined through external and artificial stimulus, rather than the ability to feed, clothe, and house ourselves within cooperative and free societies, with or without the presence of some sort of currency, we will always remain trapped within the confines of a closed loop debate. We are debating, basically, the best way to produce our own chains.

The fundamental flaw of libertarian ideology is the belief that wealth is the product of the natural world rather than that the natural world is in and of itself the source, and only source, of all wealth. The fundamental flaw of the left is to believe that the starting point of negotiation is the wage of those who add their labour to the product and the price at which it will be offered back to him or her rather than preserving and sharing the natural world in common.

Until we can get past that we may as all just agree, but it has electrolytes.

Sun, 2010-06-20 15:42

#33

absentia

Frustrated Mess wrote:

But money is not wealth. This is the fundamental starting off point that renders both right and left wing economic ideology fatally flawed....

.... The fundamental flaw of libertarian ideology is the belief that wealth is the product of the natural world rather than that the natural world is in and of itself the source, and only source, of all wealth. The fundamental flaw of the left is to believe that the starting point of negotiation is the wage of those who add their labour to the product and the price at which it will be offered back to him or her rather than preserving and sharing the natural world in common.

Until we can get past that we may as all just agree, but it has electrolytes.

Yea!

Do you ever wonder why no tv commentator, when discussing the various national debts that are 'forcing' one country after another to cancel pensions and close hospitals, ever asks: To whom are all these billions owed? And what if the governments of Greece and Portugal (and Canada) simply said: "FU NSF"? Because most of the money was never borrowed at all: most of it is expected profit from compound interest. A good deal of interest has already been paid through a process called 'servicing the debt'. All profit is imaginary money - not been earned, produced, exchanged; not even printed - only expected. Lots of people's expectations are disappointed. Why not a usurer's?

Sun, 2010-06-20 15:47

#34

ygtbk

leftypopulist wrote:
ygtbk wrote:

Since you may be in some kind of emotional zone, this may not work for you. BUT when someone (like Hammerton) makes an equation like "freedom = property", they're clearly failing even the high-school debate team tests of logic. BTW, Bill Gates has probably saved more lives than either you or me.

Since you *may* be a dogmatic piece of Capitalistic crap (or not), I'll explain it to you. Gates could be slapped with a 99% personal income tax rate and still be extremely wealthy. Those funds could then be used to prevent the deaths (due to lack of food, clothing, shelter and medicine because the elite capitalists are hogging the vast majority of international wealth [Gates has as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans]) of millions of poor. The lack of wealth redistribution CAUSES the mass death. The forced wealth redistribution PREVENTS the mass death. Most here favor extremely progressive taxation, so that the megarich are mega-taxed (at a 50-90% rate) in order to prevent mass death due to lack of accumulated wealth. The free market system ultimately and inevitably concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands, via ruthless dog eat dog short-term aquisition of capital. You end up with 99% of the wealth in 1% of the hands. The free market doesn't address this (helping the poor survive isn't inherently profitable), and neither does private charity because the more the private charity gives to the poor the less quarterly profits they make, making them less competitive. All capitalists want pure economic freedom. In the real world / real people zone, this means allowing the rich the FREEDOM to become trillionaires and allowing the poor the FREEDOM to fall through the cracks and perish because they didn't accumulate adequate capital. It's really quite simple. When the unfettered greed game becomes the economic system, only the most ruthless and cunning of profiteers survive, becoming megarich, and zero safety net spells mass suffering and death for the bottom 1/3rd of worldwide income earners.

Picking Bill Gates to be your personal demon is a little eccentric. Somebody with a worse reputation, like say Conrad Black, would work much better, for at least two reasons:

1) In an alternate history, we could all have ended up using IBM mainframes or Apple computers, instead of (to a large extent) Microsoft software. The only reason Bill Gates got rich was because he provided something that people wanted at a price they were willing to pay.

2) Bill Gates has spent a huge amount of money to set up a charitable foundation that is saving lives. This is a good thing, regardless of whether you personally like him or not.

You're welcome.

Sun, 2010-06-20 16:30

#35

leftypopulist

...

Sun, 2010-06-20 16:30

#36

leftypopulist

JKR wrote:

leftypopulist wrote:

The free market system ultimately and inevitably concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands, via ruthless dog eat dog short-term aquisition of capital. You end up with 99% of the wealth in 1% of the hands. The free market doesn't address this (helping the poor survive isn't inherently profitable), and neither does private charity because the more the private charity gives to the poor the less quarterly profits they make, making them less competitive.

This is why Libertarianism is unfeasible. It would devour itself. Libertarianism, or more accurately described, anarchy, would lead to a society where the top 1% politically and economically dominate society to the detriment of 99% of the population.

You can't have democracy where the vast majority is subservient to an elite minority. So if libertarianism were to ever have a chance of succeeding, it would have to annihilate democracy.

But that's the plan. To construct an economic dictatorship where the bottom 99% are financially throttled in order to facilitate the puny elitist cluster of materialistic domination. And shockingly, the koolaid is gulped down by the Capitalist Fundamentalist followers.

It would 'work' just fine as long as the followers (economic slaves) believe in the absolute freedom mantra of allowing the rich the freedom to become trillionaires and allowing the poor the freedom to fall through the cracks and perish (due to lack of accumulated capital). Capitalist Fundamentalists believe in the divine perfection of greed and the inherent evil of gov't. They habitually don't and won't acknowledge the negative physical effects forced upon the poor.

Sun, 2010-06-20 16:32

#37

leftypopulist

JKR wrote:

But social democratic countries could probably be more democratic. So social democracy might not be the be all and end all.

They have fractured ideal social democracy by buying into and applying too much American Neoliberal/Neoconservative policy. Eg. Sweden embracing the US drug war / Finland embracing US style gun rights. Too much globalism/corporatism as well.

Sun, 2010-06-20 16:34

#38

leftypopulist

Frustrated Mess wrote:

But money is not wealth. This is the fundamental starting off point that renders both right and left wing economic ideology fatally flawed.

Let me put it this way, for all the money and power that Bill Gates holds, he can't own a dodo bird. They are extinct. Money can't purchase that which has been destroyed to create money. Money is a representation of artificial wealth. It is not power.

I think you are conflating your idealism with 2010 on the ground realism.

Sun, 2010-06-20 16:53

#39

leftypopulist

absentia wrote:

Seems like everything the freedom-loving types want depends on enforcement of property rights by a government - that the rest of us pay for. If not so, then the hereditary and speculative (that is: physically inconsequential) jillionnaires have to hire armed thugs to protect them.

Capitalust (sic!) Fundamentalists want and demand...

1) A 0% income tax rate for the rich. (Because only then will the poor and the entire society experience TRUE economic salvation).

2) A 0% corporate / big business tax rate. (Because only then, with the divine free market magic will the invisible hand liberate everyone economically).

3) Every single service entirely privatized. (Because only then will the inherent superiority of the free market disprove the pro-gov't wackos).

4) Zero regulations and zero inspections. (Because the magically magnificent, unfettered free market ALWAYS exposes the perpetrators and poisoners).

5) Zero 'coercive' wealth redistribution of any kind. No gov't welfare or UI. (Because the freedom to become a trillionaire correlates with the freedom to fall through the greed-game cracks and die).

Sun, 2010-06-20 17:09

#40

leftypopulist

ygtbk wrote:

Picking Bill Gates to be your personal demon is a little eccentric. Somebody with a worse reputation, like say Conrad Black, would work much better, for at least two reasons:

1) In an alternate history, we could all have ended up using IBM mainframes or Apple computers, instead of (to a large extent) Microsoft software. The only reason Bill Gates got rich was because he provided something that people wanted at a price they were willing to pay.

2) Bill Gates has spent a huge amount of money to set up a charitable foundation that is saving lives. This is a good thing, regardless of whether you personally like him or not.

Is eccentricity an invalidator ? No.

Gates is an example of a megarich icon who (like Buffet and all the other Billionaires) could be slapped with a 99% income tax rate, STILL be megarich, and worldwide poverty would be eliminated. His private charity generosity peripherally proves the argument for wealth redistribution. After catastrophic poverty is eliminated, his personal income tax rate could be lowered to 40-60%, reinvigorating the market innovation theory (most leftists don't want to permanently destroy all wealth and technology as many rightists want to believe).

Crunch the numbers, and drop the dogma.

Sun, 2010-06-20 17:10

#41

absentia

Not to mention, ygtbk cited Bill Gates as a benefactor.

Sun, 2010-06-20 17:11

#42

leftypopulist

A text search shows that I did. Still inconsequential though, as any of the megabillionaires could be pointed to interchangably.

Sun, 2010-06-20 17:37

#43

absentia

Mea culpa.

Sun, 2010-06-20 17:57

#44

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

leftypopulist wrote:
Frustrated Mess wrote:

But money is not wealth. This is the fundamental starting off point that renders both right and left wing economic ideology fatally flawed.

Let me put it this way, for all the money and power that Bill Gates holds, he can't own a dodo bird. They are extinct. Money can't purchase that which has been destroyed to create money. Money is a representation of artificial wealth. It is not power.
I think you are conflating your idealism with 2010 on the ground realism.

It is not idealism. It is true. If you don't believe it's true, show me how it is not. And what is your "2010 realism"? First I've heard of it.

Perhaps the purpose of this discussion is purely in-the-box thinking? Or is it just to slag libertarians?

Sun, 2010-06-20 21:16

#45

leftypopulist

Frustrated Mess wrote:

leftypopulist wrote:
Frustrated Mess wrote:

But money is not wealth. This is the fundamental starting off point that renders both right and left wing economic ideology fatally flawed.

Let me put it this way, for all the money and power that Bill Gates holds, he can't own a dodo bird. They are extinct. Money can't purchase that which has been destroyed to create money. Money is a representation of artificial wealth. It is not power.
I think you are conflating your idealism with 2010 on the ground realism.

It is not idealism. It is true. If you don't believe it's true, show me how it is not. And what is your "2010 realism"? First I've heard of it.

Perhaps the purpose of this discussion is purely in-the-box thinking? Or is it just to slag libertarians?

It is indeed conceptually bi-polar hyper-idealism. Therefore your moniker.

Just because the current international economic & monetary system isn't your IDEAL system (yes, it is far too symbolic, intangible, derivative, unrepresentative, perfunctory, bloated, tilted and artificial in it's infrastructure and configuration), doesn't mean it isn't REAL and is unfixable/non-transformable to a degree which would and could alleviate vast suffering of the poor.

Aside from not being able to time travel and re-establish the dodo bird, you tell me all the things any of THESE guys CAN'T do with their wealth (aside from withdrawing it in it's entirety in one split second from their primary bank of use).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires

You see, FM, when you evaluate the day to day, hands on, living reality of these individuals in 2010, we find the counterbalancing , TANGIBLE reality. The OTHER humans living within this imperfect and bloated economic / monetary system.

http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&gbv=1&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=starvation

Now, compare the child poverty rate in Michigan (33%) with that in Denmark (3%) and you'll see that for you or anyone to say "damn it all, there's nothing that can be done because the entire system is fundamentally flawed, so I don't support social democratic notions of wealth redistribution" actually CONTRIBUTES to the status-quo.

Meanwhile, the victim count due to wealth hoarding mounts.

If Canadians boycotted the Libs & Cons entirely and voted exclusivley NDP & Green, policy change would happen, along with a tangible positive effect. The wealth redistribution would increase greatly and alleviate much (but not all) of the suffering and death : suffering and death which is simply due to lack of ability to purchase adequate food, clothing, shelter, medicine and health care.

As for bashing Libertarians, you forget I already complimented 2/3rds of Libertarian policies in my initial post. In the social policy realm, I hear them say "stop the drug war, legalize gay marriage, allow abortion rights". And I generally agree. In the foreign policy realm I hear "stop all interventionism, secretive operations, nation building" and I am quite impressed.

But then comes the unscientific and inhumane disconnect they exhibit in the economic policy realm when they demand ...

1) A 0% income tax rate for the rich. (Because only then will the poor and the entire society experience TRUE economic salvation).

2) A 0% corporate / big business tax rate. (Because only then, with the divine free market magic will the invisible hand liberate everyone economically).

3) Every single service entirely privatized. (Because only then will the inherent superiority of the free market disprove the pro-gov't wackos. The incapable ones in society must depend exclusively on private charity).

4) Zero regulations and zero inspections. (Because the magically magnificent, unfettered free market ALWAYS exposes the perpetrators and poisoners).

5) Zero 'coercive' wealth redistribution of any kind. No gov't welfare or UI. (Because the freedom to become a trillionaire correlates with the freedom to fall through the greed-game cracks and die).

Maybe you have a soft spot for Libertarian economics in the way I do for their stated social and foreign policy positions ?

Sun, 2010-06-20 21:58

#46

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:

It is indeed conceptually bi-polar hyper-idealism.Therefore your moniker.

Uh, oh. He used the prefix "hyper". I got me a live one. And he made fun of my handle. That's original.

Quote:

Just because the current international economic & monetary system isn't your IDEAL system (yes, it is far too symbolic, intangible, derivative, unrepresentative, perfunctory, bloated, tilted and artificial in it's infrastructure and configuration), doesn't mean it isn't REAL

Hmmm. Comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see. What I said, is that money is not based on real wealth.That is very different than arguing concrete and steel and instutions don't comprise real things. Think about it. I'm sure you'll get it.

Quote:

Aside from not being able to time travel and re-establish the dodo bird, you tell me all the things any of THESE guys CAN'T do with their wealth (aside from withdrawing it in it's entirety in one split second from their primary bank of use). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires

Cure cancer. Stop the oil flowing from into the Gulf. Feed 7 billion people. Stop one million people from dying everyday from preventable, water borne diseases. Produce a global climate pact. Reverse the loss of biodiversity. Reduce the background rate of extinction to what it was a century ago. Produce more light, sweet crude. Derive sustenance from eating their money. Shall I go on?

Quote:

You see, FM, when you evaluate the day to day, hands on, living reality of these individuals in 2010, we find the counterbalancing , TANGIBLE reality. The OTHER humans living within this imperfect and bloated economic / monetary system. http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&gbv=1&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=starvation Now, compare the child poverty rate in Michigan (33%) with that in Denmark (3%) and you'll see that for you or anyone to say "damn it all, there's nothing that can be done because the entire system is fundamentally flawed, so I don't support social democratic notions of wealth redistribution" actually CONTRIBUTES to the status-quo.

You say "wealth redistribution". Global wealth? If Western nations consume 80% of the world's resources, are you advocating they stop so that the world's resources may be allocated equitably? So that the Ghanian may have access to the same per capita energy, for one example, as the Canadian? Or do we continue raping and pillaging the Earth and send a few dollars to the Global South from time-to-time? We could even invent a catchy name like 'Make Poverty History'.

Quote:

Meanwhile, the victim count due to wealth hoarding mounts.

There is no wealth hoarding, There is weath liquidating. The global capitalist system maximizes profits through economies of scale. Not just resource extraction and production, but markets also. While seas are swept clean of fish, forests are clear-cut or strip mined, mountains are decapitated and entire eco-systems are laid waste, people are pushed into cities. This is all about controlling costs and maximizing profits.

Quote:

If Canadians boycotted the Libs & Cons entirely and voted exclusivley NDP & Green, policy change would happen, along with a tangible positive effect. The wealth redistribution would increase greatly and alleviate much (but not all) of the suffering and death : suffering and death which is simply due to lack of ability to purchase adequate food, clothing, shelter, medicine and health care.

Not if the resources are not there to provide them. I assume you are an economist. You seem to believe we exist within a vacuum and as though all that we use and waste is somehow unconnected to everything else and the rest of the world. We live on a finite planet, in a closed loop eco-system, with an economic system intent on consuming and converting the commons into cash as quickly as possible. No amount of "wealth redistribution" will provide clean water to the world if there is no clean water.

Quote:

As for bashing Libertarians, you forget I already complimented 2/3rds of Libertarian policies in my initial post. In the social policy realm, I hear them say "stop the drug war, legalize gay marriage, allow abortion rights". And I generally agree. In the foreign policy realm I hear "stop all interventionism, secretive operations, nation building" and I am quite impressed. But then comes the unscientific and inhumane disconnect they exhibit in the economic policy realm when they demand ... 1) A 0% income tax rate for the rich. (Because only then will the poor and the entire society experience TRUE economic salvation). 2) A 0% corporate / big business tax rate. (Because only then, with the divine free market magic will the invisible hand liberate everyone economically). 3) Every single service entirely privatized. (Because only then will the inherent superiority of the free market disprove the pro-gov't wackos. The incapable ones in society must depend exclusively on private charity). 4) Zero regulations and zero inspections. (Because the magically magnificent, unfettered free market ALWAYS exposes the perpetrators and poisoners). 5) Zero 'coercive' wealth redistribution of any kind. No gov't welfare or UI. (Because the freedom to become a trillionaire correlates with the freedom to fall through the greed-game cracks and die). Maybe you have a soft spot for Libertarian economics in the way I do for their stated social and foreign policy positions ?

Blah. Blah. You just spent a good long time defending the heart of their economic ideology with your own. In fact, most regulation today serves to protect markets for global corporations. NAFTA is a regulatory framework, for example.

Sun, 2010-06-20 22:33

#47

leftypopulist

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Quote:

It is indeed conceptually bi-polar hyper-idealism.Therefore your moniker.

Uh, oh. He used the prefix "hyper". I got me a live one. And he made fun of my handle. That's original.

Quote:

Just because the current international economic & monetary system isn't your IDEAL system (yes, it is far too symbolic, intangible, derivative, unrepresentative, perfunctory, bloated, tilted and artificial in it's infrastructure and configuration), doesn't mean it isn't REAL

Hmmm. Comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see. What I said, is that money is not based on real wealth.That is very different than arguing concrete and steel and instutions don't comprise real things. Think about it. I'm sure you'll get it.

Quote:

Aside from not being able to time travel and re-establish the dodo bird, you tell me all the things any of THESE guys CAN'T do with their wealth (aside from withdrawing it in it's entirety in one split second from their primary bank of use). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires

Cure cancer. Stop the oil flowing from into the Gulf. Feed 7 billion people. Stop one million people from dying everyday from preventable, water borne diseases. Produce a global climate pact. Reverse the loss of biodiversity. Reduce the background rate of extinction to what it was a century ago. Produce more light, sweet crude. Derive sustenance from eating their money. Shall I go on?

Quote:

You see, FM, when you evaluate the day to day, hands on, living reality of these individuals in 2010, we find the counterbalancing , TANGIBLE reality. The OTHER humans living within this imperfect and bloated economic / monetary system. http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&gbv=1&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=starvation Now, compare the child poverty rate in Michigan (33%) with that in Denmark (3%) and you'll see that for you or anyone to say "damn it all, there's nothing that can be done because the entire system is fundamentally flawed, so I don't support social democratic notions of wealth redistribution" actually CONTRIBUTES to the status-quo.

You say "wealth redistribution". Global wealth? If Western nations consume 80% of the world's resources, are you advocating they stop so that the world's resources may be allocated equitably? So that the Ghanian may have access to the same per capita energy, for one example, as the Canadian? Or do we continue raping and pillaging the Earth and send a few dollars to the Global South from time-to-time? We could even invent a catchy name like 'Make Poverty History'.

Quote:

Meanwhile, the victim count due to wealth hoarding mounts.

There is no wealth hoarding, There is weath liquidating. The global capitalist system maximizes profits through economies of scale. Not just resource extraction and production, but markets also. While seas are swept clean of fish, forests are clear-cut or strip mined, mountains are decapitated and entire eco-systems are laid waste, people are pushed into cities. This is all about controlling costs and maximizing profits.

Quote:

If Canadians boycotted the Libs & Cons entirely and voted exclusivley NDP & Green, policy change would happen, along with a tangible positive effect. The wealth redistribution would increase greatly and alleviate much (but not all) of the suffering and death : suffering and death which is simply due to lack of ability to purchase adequate food, clothing, shelter, medicine and health care.

Not if the resources are not there to provide them. I assume you are an economist. You seem to believe we exist within a vacuum and as though all that we use and waste is somehow unconnected to everything else and the rest of the world. We live on a finite planet, in a closed loop eco-system, with an economic system intent on consuming and converting the commons into cash as quickly as possible. No amount of "wealth redistribution" will provide clean water to the world if there is no clean water.

Quote:

As for bashing Libertarians, you forget I already complimented 2/3rds of Libertarian policies in my initial post. In the social policy realm, I hear them say "stop the drug war, legalize gay marriage, allow abortion rights". And I generally agree. In the foreign policy realm I hear "stop all interventionism, secretive operations, nation building" and I am quite impressed. But then comes the unscientific and inhumane disconnect they exhibit in the economic policy realm when they demand ... 1) A 0% income tax rate for the rich. (Because only then will the poor and the entire society experience TRUE economic salvation). 2) A 0% corporate / big business tax rate. (Because only then, with the divine free market magic will the invisible hand liberate everyone economically). 3) Every single service entirely privatized. (Because only then will the inherent superiority of the free market disprove the pro-gov't wackos. The incapable ones in society must depend exclusively on private charity). 4) Zero regulations and zero inspections. (Because the magically magnificent, unfettered free market ALWAYS exposes the perpetrators and poisoners). 5) Zero 'coercive' wealth redistribution of any kind. No gov't welfare or UI. (Because the freedom to become a trillionaire correlates with the freedom to fall through the greed-game cracks and die). Maybe you have a soft spot for Libertarian economics in the way I do for their stated social and foreign policy positions ?

Blah. Blah. You just spent a good long time defending the heart of their economic ideology with your own. In fact, most regulation today serves to protect markets for global corporations. NAFTA is a regulatory framework, for example.

There's no use arguing with a Frustrated Mess who contends there are no tangible solutions which exist in an imperfect world.

For others, add up the total purchasing power of the Billionaires listed. Then, add up the total purchasing power of the destitute poor in the pictures. Then tell me how much of the hoarded wealth is being used to purchase water purification, food, clothing, shelter, medicine, health care and other goods/services which would alleviate some/most/all of the PHYSICAL suffering the poor. Calculate the relief which would occur if 90-99.9% of the hoarded wealth were spent on the required goods, infrastructure and services. BTW, it's currently just a LITTLE under 90%.

According to FM, nothing can be done. The trillions of dollars which are being hoarded (and NOT spent on the poor) certainly couldn't be spent on the poor because there is no way to purchase the goods, infrastructure and services needed to prevent the suffering and death of the poor.

Hyper-Idealism + circular defeatism = Frustrated Mess.

Sun, 2010-06-20 22:55

#48

leftypopulist

RE: FM's assertion that I defend the Libertarian economic ideology. I advocate for the numerical opposite of their recommended configuration.

1) A 0% income tax rate for the rich. (Because only then will the poor and the entire society experience TRUE economic salvation).

2) A 0% corporate / big business tax rate. (Because only then, with the divine free market magic will the invisible hand liberate everyone economically).

4) Zero regulations and zero inspections. (Because the magically magnificent, unfettered free market ALWAYS exposes the perpetrators and poisoners).

5) Zero 'coercive' wealth redistribution of any kind. No gov't welfare or UI. (Because the freedom to become a trillionaire correlates with the freedom to fall through the greed-game cracks and die).

VS.

1) A 40-90% income tax rate for the rich.

2) A 40-90% corporate / big business tax rate.

3) 40-90% nationalization of major industries.

4) MAXIMUM regulations and inspections.

5) PROMINENT 'coercive' wealth redistribution. A STRONG welfare state with AMPLE welfare and UI payments.

6) A guaranteed minimal annual income of $20,000-25,000 for every individual citizen as a birthright.

7) An account for each citizen, as a birthright, divvying up the nationalized element of the vast natural resources / oil revenue.

Norway has tried to implement some of these things and succeeded.

Mon, 2010-06-21 01:32

#49

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

From a previous dialogue about Bill Gates here, for the benefit of ygtbk:

Quote:

And, yes, obviously saying "the rich" is very broad. Bill Gates' household and my household are both probably in the highest 1% of income earners in the U.S. but the differences are vast worlds apart. But this too makes the extremes more pronounced. Gates is in a position to cause far more damage by, say, flying around in a private jet. He's also in a position to do far more good by, say, giving 1 billion dollars to a good organization that can make far more of an impact than a $500 donation from me ever could.

He's more likely to do considerable harm through greed and arrogance. Bill continues to 'donate' to his own advantage. For example, for years Microsoft has 'donated' their products strategically to gain control of certain market sectors (education being the most notable).

Also, few people are aware that Bill Gates is the largest biotech investor in the world. Little wonder then that when he 'gives' a billion dollars, [url=http://www.gmoafrica.org/2005/07/bill-gates-donates-sh13b-to-biotech_02.... goes directly towards the commercialization of bio-engineered agriculture.[/url][/quote]

It doesn't matter whether it's going to benefit the third world, as long as it benefits Bill Gates.

Mon, 2010-06-21 16:52

#50

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

I didn't say there was nothing that could be done. Your argument is all that can be done is to hold out our begging bowls and plead for more with a determined assertiveness.

When you begin your argument on their language, you are making their argument for them and they have already won. Please sir, I demand more?

Mon, 2010-06-21 17:12

#51

leftypopulist

Stop cynically covering every attempt at real change in North Amercica with a bucket of vague, defeatist cynical crap (which only deflates the North American left). Do Jack Layton and Dennis Kucinich look better covered in feces or something ?

Focus in on hands-on, on-the-ground manifestations. I listed 7 (of many) social democracy sliders which can be cranked up WITHIN THE CURRENT IMPERFECT ECONOMIC/MONETARY SYSTEM to reform and change a capitalist/corporatist system. Compare Norway (Sweden, Finand, Denmark) vs. the US. Measure the societal differences, socio-economic statistics and indicators.

1) The # of countries / foreign civilians each has invaded and killed.

2) Universal health care.

3) Universal education.

4) Infant mortality rate.

5) Child poverty rate.

6) Homicide rate.

7) Incarceration rate.

8) Personal bankruptcy rate.

9) UI & Welfare safety net reliability.

10) Market Inspection/Regulation effectiveness.

11) Gov't transparency.

12) Voting system.

13) Media bias and control.

14) Green technology.

There are dozens more. The regions/countries are NOT the same, because the US has never had social democracy while Sweden,Finland, Denmark and Norway HAVE. And the degree to which they mirror the US is the degree to which they have embraced Neoconservative and Neoliberal policies.

Meanwhile the NDP has never formed federal gov't in Canada and the Greens have never won a seat. Kinda hard to crank up the social democracy sliders when the friggen apathetic, cynical voters don't even give the proper candidates a chance to even enter the friggen room FFS.

Pages

Topic locked