Calling all you Crackpot Capitalists

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheBigShort

Registered User
Messages
2,789
I've been somewhat critical in the past, and present, of cheerleaders that vaunt the free market system without hesitation and their total ignorance of the intricate nature of delivering a public service formulated through public policy to the citizens of a State.

Their tendency is to applaud and admire all wealth and it's 'creators' while disregarding (putting it lightly), those that are 'dependent' on their goodwill through welfare transfers and accommodation.

Anyway, to cut my speel short, here is an article from the US that shows how free market capitalism is the only game in town, and how a socialist like me is always way off the mark?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...-17-trillion-as-stock-market-rises-2017-09-21

In other words, the article projects notions of wealth, feel good factor, trickle down economics etc,
When in reality, it is nothing more than an engineered money printing scam to keep those that have already accumulated vast wealth, feeling good about themselves so that they won't panic and expose the facilities of the 'free market' capitalist system.
In turn, what emerges is a trickle-up economic system. With increasing wealth becoming more and more centralised.

I bring this topic up now because I believe the world is heading for the economic depression that was diverted in 2008-2012 by way of a stop-gap money printing scam called QE.
 
As an add on to this, anyone following geo-political affairs will be aware that Russi/China/Iran are moving towards exiting the petro/dollar system.
Should this occur, then expect the citizenry of Saudi Arabia to rise up when the price of the US dollar falls and the price of imports rocket. Collapsing a key US ally.
What is preventing this collapse of US hegemony is their military strength, demonstrated by provocations of North Korea. A country that has no economic, political or strategic interest in the US, other than the continued and persistent presence of nuclear carrying US warships on its coast.
In the end, the US threat to annihilate North Korea, is in actual a threat to Russia/China/Iran if they try destroy the US dollar.
 
Last edited:
dub_nerd said:
How is that free market capitalism?
Click to expand...

That is a fair point, hence the term 'crackpot capitalist'. I should have emphasized that this system purports itself to be free market capitalism. It is not.
I don't agree that it is socialism either. So-called socialist states in the Soviet Union, North Korea only purported to be socialist, they were/are nothing more than central command economies serving an elite.
The US is now, or very close to that point also, and in my opinion near collapse.
It is under threat from decreasing reliance on the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, and it is now reacting with what it sees is its only way to preserve its status as the world's largest economy, through its military.
 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
I don't agree that it is socialism either. So-called socialist states in the Soviet Union, North Korea only purported to be socialist
Click to expand...

Ah yes, you nearly forgot to mention that didn't you?

Ask yourself how the average man, woman and child have fared in Russia, China & N Korea since 1945? Look which way people moved when the Berlin wall came done. Look at the shambles that is Venezuela and even our own Greece.

Socialism is a failed and dangerous ideology and I thank my lucky stars that I live in a country where the vast majority see it for what it is.
 
Socialism is a mo
Firefly said:
Ah yes, you nearly forgot to mention that didn't you?

Ask yourself how the average man, woman and child have fared in Russia, China & N Korea since 1945? Look which way people moved when the Berlin wall came done. Look at the shambles that is Venezuela and even our own Greece.

Socialism is a failed and dangerous ideology and I thank my lucky stars that I live in a country where the vast majority see it for what it is.
Click to expand...
Socialism is a morally bankrupt ideology and is not a viable solution to cronyism. Cronyism; that's what the article is actually talking about.
 
Firefly said:
Ah yes, you nearly forgot to mention that didn't you?
Click to expand...

Actually, for you personally, it's been explained at length on a number of occasions. You obviously don't pay attention.

Firefly said:
Ask yourself how the average man, woman and child have fared in Russia, China & N Korea since 1945?
Click to expand...

Why?

Firefly said:
Look which way people moved when the Berlin wall came done
Click to expand...

West. Is there a point somewhere?

Firefly said:
Look at the shambles that is Venezuela and even our own Greece.
Click to expand...

Great, Greece, a bankrupt country that, under a right wing government, colluded with the centralised command banking sector to work the books in order to join the Euro.
Apparently that's the fault of socialism!

Venezuela, a country that elected a government to arrest control of the wealth being generated from its natural resources away from the centralised banking cartels.
Inducing US economic sanctions and interference with its democratic systems.
And that's the fault of socialism too?
 
Purple said:
Cronyism; that's what the article is actually talking about.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Those that advocate it are the crackpot capitalists. Just as the cheerleaders for the Soviet Union and NK are the Looney left.
Both are deluded in thinking that this is a free market economy or that USSR was a socialist society.
 
TheBigShort said:
Exactly.
Those that advocate it are the crackpot capitalists. Just as the cheerleaders for the Soviet Union and NK are the Looney left.
Both are deluded in thinking that this is a free market economy or that USSR was a socialist society.
Click to expand...
The free market is an artificial construct. Without regulation there would be no Google as Microsoft would have been able to force every company selling computers with a Windows operating system to use their internet browser. There are plenty of other examples.
The problem is when a group or vested interest can exert undue influence on a market or on the democratic process, including the way in which laws and regulations are framed. I'm opposed to all such groups and bodies. We are citizens and this is a democratic republic. All power should come from the people through their democratically elected representatives and only through those representatives.
Very large corporations, industry groups (such as the health insurance industry and Gun Lobby in the USA), Investment Funds, Trade Unions etc. all seek to subvert democracy by influencing the government. All of them are a corrosive influence and that influence always leads to cronyism.
 
Purple said:
The free market is an artificial construct. Without regulation there would be no Google as Microsoft would have been able to force every company selling computers with a Windows operating system to use their internet browser. There are plenty of other examples.
The problem is when a group or vested interest can exert undue influence on a market or on the democratic process, including the way in which laws and regulations are framed. I'm opposed to all such groups and bodies. We are citizens and this is a democratic republic. All power should come from the people through their democratically elected representatives and only through those representatives.
Very large corporations, industry groups (such as the health insurance industry and Gun Lobby in the USA), Investment Funds, Trade Unions etc. all seek to subvert democracy by influencing the government. All of them are a corrosive influence and that influence always leads to cronyism.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this.

The centralized command economies of the Soviet Union and NK were/are "a group or vested interest can exert undue influence on a market or on the democratic process, including the way in which laws and regulations are framed", namely their respective governments and party political assemblies.

The centralizing command economy of the US and the EU are "a group or vested interest can exert undue influence on a market or on the democratic process, including the way in which laws and regulations are framed", namely the banking and financial sector under the Federal Reserve and ECB.

I don't agree that organisations cannot seek to influence government, no more or less, than an individual can attempt to influence government policy by protesting, campaigning etc.
I do agree that it is abundantly clear, where influence is made, it is not always transparent and influence tends to disproportionately weigh in favor of large organisations.
 
All lobby groups and organisations, and I am thinking particularly of Trade Unions here, are self serving and ultimately act against the common good.
The undue influence of big business and finance is more obviously corrosive to the common good.

People who run corporations are no more or less civic minded or ethical than anyone else. Therefore the blinkered and morally superior look only at their agenda and dismiss the voices of others who have a different perspective. Allowing those voices which have a narrow and myopic agenda is damaging. The pernicious nature of those agendas is hard to pin down and so it is usually only in hindsight that we see the consequences.
 
Purple said:
Very large corporations, industry groups (such as the health insurance industry and Gun Lobby in the USA), Investment Funds, Trade Unions etc. all seek to subvert democracy by influencing the government. All of them are a corrosive influence and that influence always leads to cronyism.
Click to expand...
Purple said:
All lobby groups and organisations, and I am thinking particularly of Trade Unions here, are self serving and ultimately act against the common good.
The undue influence of big business and finance is more obviously corrosive to the common good.
Click to expand...

While I could agree a value with this in principle, I can't grasp a system in which it would operate in practice. Aren't nearly all lobby groups self-interested? What about local resident's associations? The Chamber of Commerce? Would it be ok for an individual farmer to lobby for his/her own interest but not for a group to band together to do so?

We need a system in which no group has undue influence and transparency to see what influence is being brought to bear.In practice this is very difficult, eg, the influence that can be applied indirectly through media control. But perhaps, I have missed the point?
 
Early Riser said:
While I could agree a value with this in principle, I can't grasp a system in which it would operate in practice. Aren't nearly all lobby groups self-interested? What about local resident's associations? The Chamber of Commerce? Would it be ok for an individual farmer to lobby for his/her own interest but not for a group to band together to do so?

We need a system in which no group has undue influence and transparency to see what influence is being brought to bear.In practice this is very difficult, eg, the influence that can be applied indirectly through media control. But perhaps, I have missed the point?
Click to expand...
No, that is the point. We need to call things what they are,
 
Early Riser said:
While I could agree a value with this in principle, I can't grasp a system in which it would operate in practice. Aren't nearly all lobby groups self-interested?
Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment.

Lobby groups can also provide a valuable service in raising awareness of social issues etc that can prompt government to introduce positive legislation - off the top of my head, anti-smoking lobby and trade union campaigning to ban smoking in the workplace.
Its when lobby groups exert undue influence, and that it is not wholly transparent what is behind a piece of legislation or a regulation that problems will arise.
Hence my reference to stock ownership in the US. I don't know about anybody else but I spend a considerable bit more time following affairs in the US than I ever did, and the more I follow, the more concerned I am at what is going on.
 
Our bank allowed us to borrow beyond our retirement ages. They didn't force us to, they simply facilitated it, subject to us having pension schemes in place (with resulting pension income post retirement age). I don't believe that's reckless or them putting a gun to our heads. In reality, we will clear the mortgage down before then, but even if we don't, our retirement lump sums would kill it off.

But the above can still be spun as "Young Couple Forced to Borrow into their Dotage Shocker"!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top