Destroyed by Total Capitalism

[Something completely different]

I just read this political commentary, found it interesting, and wanted to post about it here and maybe hear some of your opinions.

I think it pritty well expresses a average european opinion about the current US election.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...65437.html

Germans see the US election as a battle between the good Obama and the evil Romney. But this is a mistake. Regardless of who wins the election on Tuesday, total capitalism is America's true ruler, and it has the power to destroy the country.

No country has produced more Nobel Prize winners, yet in New York City hospitals had to be evacuated during the storm because their emergency generators didn't work properly.

Anyone who sees this as a contradiction has failed to grasp the fact that America is a country of total capitalism. Its functionaries have no need of public hospitals or of a reliable power supply to private homes. The elite have their own infrastructure. Total capitalism, however, has left American society in ruins and crippled the government. America's fate is not just an accident produced by the system. It is a consequence of that system.

Romney, the exceedingly wealthy business man, and Obama, the cultivated civil rights lawyer, are two faces of a political system that no longer has much to do with democracy as we understand it. Democracy is about choice, but Americans don't really have much of a choice. Obama proved this. Nearly four years ago, it seemed like a new beginning for America when he took office. But this was a misunderstanding. Obama didn't close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, nor did he lift immunity for alleged war criminals from the Bush-era, or regulate the financial markets, and climate change was hardly discussed during the current election campaign. The military, the banks, industry -- the people are helpless in the face of their power, as is the president.

Not even credit default swaps, the kind of investment that brought down Lehman Brothers and took Western economies to the brink, has been banned or even better regulated. It is likely the case that Obama wanted to do more, but couldn't. But what role does that play in the bigger picture?

We want to believe that Obama failed because of the conservatives inside his own country. Indeed, the fanatics that Mitt Romney depends on have jettisoned everything that distinguishes the West: science and logic, reason and moderation, even simple decency. They hate homosexuals, the weak and the state. They oppress women and persecute immigrants. Their moralizing about abortion doesn't even spare the victims of rape. They are the Taliban of the West.

The truth is that we simply no longer understand America. Looking at the country from Germany and Europe, we see a foreign culture. The political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists. The checks and balances have failed. And a perverse mix of irresponsibility, greed and religious zealotry dominate public opinion.

The downfall of the American empire has begun. It could be that the country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried. But they aren't even trying.

[Minimalist]

Germans see the US election as a battle between the good Obama and the evil Romney. But this is a mistake. Regardless of who wins the election on Tuesday, total capitalism is America's true ruler, and it has the power to destroy the country.

George Carlin called it years ago.






What they want, tomorrow, is Mitt Fucking Romney in the White House so there will not even be the pretense of standing up to the corporate whores who are destroying the country.

[Annik]

I think that true Capitalism (which this country does not have) would be chaos.

[Minimalist]

It is what the Koch Brothers ( libertarian scumbags ) think they are purchasing with Romney.

[Tiberius]

America is not a country of "total capitalism", it is a country of "total corporatism". The two are not the same. The writer of this commentary clearly does not understand what capitalism actually is. It is in essence, the separation of market and state. The market cannot control the state, and the state cannot control the market.

That is far from what America is like. One only has to look at the banking bailouts, government handouts to large corporations, and corporate lobbyists (all of which violate the separation principle) to understand this.

[Something completely different]

wouldn`t without that seperation, things have been worse?
GM would have gone and withit it`s jobs.
If the banks would have gone, people would have lost their savings.

I understand the argument against lobbyism. But shouldnt the goverment be able to interfere when things get out of hand?

[Autumnlicious]

It is in essence, the separation of market and state. The market cannot control the state, and the state cannot control the market.

Not a complete seperation though, but a gradient.

People dying in the US right now over fungal-infested steroidal injections is due to the unregulated nature of pharmaceutical mixing centers.

Why was it unregulated? Because said centers used to be small, local operations next door to or inside a hospital where quality is enforced.

Then some enterprising individuals figured out if they centralized said small operations into singular large corporations, then they could mass produce unregulated medical goods.

There is a lot of money there now. But without regulations, a focus on quality, something to prevent bad actions, something horrendous happened.

No one would reasonably blame capitalism, but what did occur was something capitalism is unable to prevent by it's nature.

Point being, capitalism is simply the market at play given a set of conditions.

That means it allows all sorts of amoral actions as the system does not consider morality.

It falls to some overarching entity to protect the consumers from criminal actions taken in pursuit of profit.

Usually that is the government with regulations, but by definition, need not be.

So when you think about it, something must control the market's effects (taxes, regulations, et al) while not directly controlling the market.

[Minimalist]

The market cannot control the state, and the state cannot control the market.

Do you pray to that god of yours, Tibs? Because that sure as hell sounds like the same kind of religious drivel we get from the theists.

Maybe you should sacrifice a goat or something to the Koch Brothers.

[Tiberius]

wouldn`t without that seperation, things have been worse?
GM would have gone and withit it`s jobs.
If the banks would have gone, people would have lost their savings.

I understand the argument against lobbyism. But shouldnt the goverment be able to interfere when things get out of hand?

It depends on how you view government. If you want government to be a mother-figure and constantly interfere with people's lives, then you would want a close relationship between the state and the market. However, in my opinion, this does more damage than it does good. Firstly, it rewards failure...a corner shop that can't afford to keep going will close down, and that seems logical, but why isn't the same for a big business that has clearly made bad decisions? Secondly, if the government doesn't have total control over the market it is trying to interfere with, things get even more out of hand. How much of the bailout money went directly into bankers' bonuses? Quite a lot: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/31pay.html

True, GM would have gone, and so would its jobs, but when a company cannot afford to keep paying its employees...it is a failed company. It does not deserve to be propped up by the government. The whole point of the free market is free competition. If there is an influx of new employees into the market (from a big corporation failure), and there is still a demand for their trade, other companies will either take them on board or form out of those that are left.

To posit another scenario; there are thousands, and possibly millions of people who work in the printing industry, whether it be for newspapers or books. Now imagine (in a very likely near-future scenario) that the market for printed newspapers and books is either drastically reduced, or wiped out completely. Should the government step in to save the jobs of a now effectively useless sector of the market? No. That would be absurd; a complete waste of money. The world changes, and people have to change with it, whether that means learning new skills, or adapting the ones they already have.

I'm not denying the market can be a cruel place, but it works for the simple reason that supply and demand works. It is the most natural of systems, and without knowing the future, it is the best system we have.

The case of banks is a little different. People operate under the delusion that banks are a free and risk-free place to store money. They are not. Banks make the profit through investments, and they use the money of their customers to make these investments. It is the customer who risks their money putting it in a bank. They do not need to; they can store it in a safe if they so wish. The benefit of storing it in a bank often outweighs storing it in a safe of course; you get additional physical security, and can accumulate interest. However, you do so at the risk of losing it if the bank goes bust.

---

The market cannot control the state, and the state cannot control the market.

Do you pray to that god of yours, Tibs? Because that sure as hell sounds like the same kind of religious drivel we get from the theists.

Maybe you should sacrifice a goat or something to the Koch Brothers.

I was being prescriptive, not descriptive. Nothing religious; just a statement of how capitalism is supposed to be set up for it to properly match the definition.

A similar example for socialism would be: The state controls the market. The market (at least, the people) control the state.

[Something completely different]

It depends on how you view government. If you want government to be a mother-figure and constantly interfere with people's lives, then you would want a close relationship between the state and the market. However, in my opinion, this does more damage than it does good. Firstly, it rewards failure...a corner shop that can't afford to keep going will close down, and that seems logical, but why isn't the same for a big business that has clearly made bad decisions?

Because a big buisness employes thousand of people, who if unemployed risk regressing into poverty, which would be a negative effect on sociaty.
Buisnesses which cannot survive because of market competition and outdated products or sales methods such as Schlecker cannot be saved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlecker
and in such a case as Schlecker the companies which provide the drugstore with products will not go bankrupt because they can simply sell and deliver to other buisnesses which were in competition.
But a buisness such as GM, Volkswagen or chemical industries such as BASF or Bayer, have small buisnesses which have totaly specialised on producing buildingparts, chemicals and other for these buisnesses.
If such a buisness get`s into trouble because of ill-management or the managers gusto for hungarian prostetutes - why should such bring not only the big buisness but also the smaller buisnesses which depend on the big buisness into trouble if they could continue to work properly if the big buisness was simply managed better.

Secondly, if the government doesn't have total control over the market it is trying to interfere with, things get even more out of hand. How much of the bailout money went directly into bankers' bonuses? Quite a lot: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/31pay.html

The banks are sometimes not the only buisnesses which are in need for a bailout. And in these cases a bailout can prvent the regression into poverty. In germany if a buisness get`s a goverment bailout a comission of economist supervisors overviews how this money is used and if it`s used productively.
The bonuses payed out to banks give to me a perfect example of how "non regulation" distorts ethics in a economy, if the banks would have been supervised and were required to use the money efficiantly just like theres a work requirement for unemployment benefits these problems wouldnt have occured.

[quote='Tiberius' pid='359020' dateline='1352146778']
True, GM would have gone, and so would its jobs, but when a company cannot afford to keep paying its employees...it is a failed company. It does not deserve to be propped up by the government. The whole point of the free market is free competition. If there is an influx of new employees into the market (from a big corporation failure), and there is still a demand for their trade, other companies will either take them on board or form out of those that are left.

Free competition can not exist in a economic climate which furthers monopoly power, which easely comes to be under eigther to much goverment or to less regulation. but that`s something else.
True GM was drawn into crisi because it didn`t adapt towards the markets needs, rising petrol prices and no one seemed to notice that because of that: maybe people no longer want to by cars which eat fuel like ... whatever. But that was defenatly a merketing and management mistake, there are not that many carcompanies out there, therefor there isn`t that much competition to employ the jobless, and as i mentioned before: several smaler buisnesses which are specialised will collapse.

To posit another scenario; there are thousands, and possibly millions of people who work in the printing industry, whether it be for newspapers or books. Now imagine (in a very likely near-future scenario) that the market for printed newspapers and books is either drastically reduced, or wiped out completely. Should the government step in to save the jobs of a now effectively useless sector of the market? No. That would be absurd; a complete waste of money. The world changes, and people have to change with it, whether that means learning new skills, or adapting the ones they already have.

No. Every single paper currently has one or two pages on the net, papers aswell as publishers will have to adapt to new media landscape and are currently doing so.
As to paper production, i dought that it will become overdue in the future, and even if publishers and papers will no longer need paper other companies will. But should it ever be the case that paper is put into a corner like the steam engine were inovation and product renewal doesnt help, it will die.
The car industry still has the potential to provide a inovative product and therefor has much potential for groath and is therefor worth saving until a company produces petrol cars while others produce flying green enegy cars.

I'm not denying the market can be a cruel place, but it works for the simple reason that supply and demand works. It is the most natural of systems, and without knowing the future, it is the best system we have.

I never stressed that the market must be a "nice place".
I would like a further explaination for the claim that the market is a "natural system" unless i understand it correctly that you mean it is a "social darwinistic" system. In which case I have to agree, but ask what the benefits of such should be?
Baine Capital style vulture takeovers and guttings can ruin a perfectly functioning buisness aswell as speculation and "unreal - product economics". If i could use a metaphore or picture to discribe my view of how the merket should work, it would be the one of a cattle farmer, i want my cows to be healthy and develope strong musclefiber for good meat which is why i will leave them running on medows, but i will prevent them from eating weaker cattles food by assuring that one does not discriminate the other.

The case of banks is a little different. People operate under the delusion that banks are a free and risk-free place to store money. They are not. Banks make the profit through investments, and they use the money of their customers to make these investments. It is the customer who risks their money putting it in a bank. They do not need to; they can store it in a safe if they so wish. The benefit of storing it in a bank often outweighs storing it in a safe of course; you get additional physical security, and can accumulate interest. However, you do so at the risk of losing it if the bank goes bust.

The entire risk thing wouldn`t be that much of an issue if investments had to be safe, and savings used by banks for risky investments could only be used for such when the customer and owner of that capital agrees.
It is a wide spread myth that investments are unsafe risky things. most are not and those which are, are a minority and dont produce within the "real economy" and can only create a short term big profit.
If taxes or regulations were imposed on such risky transaction the number of these would go down aswell as the risk resulting out of such transactions.