To Fuzzies First Post
The most clever thing about the way you are presenting your argument is that its what anyone who has opposed laissez faire capitalism straight out has done to turn capitalism in on itself.
You observe a system that has never attained a truly pure working model (as I suppose no system ever has), and call it a failed model because tenets of the one you support have been undermining it for quite some time now. The "small rich ruling elite" as you often refer to existed as monarchies (autocracy), in oligarchies and even in democracies. They are indicative of a failed system, they are indicative of failed tenets being thrust onto a different system. In Medieval times, if you tried to raise your status as a person, especially if you tried to raise it to or past the level of the king, you often found yourself penniless and sometimes life-less.
What is especially admirable (in an academic observance) about your "denunciation," is that you know you are denouncing the system because it did not work properly when others forced your preferred model onto it. Its almost like a little kid's (or adult's for that matter) vindictive attitude of "if I can't have it then neither can you."
But as far as how the Government functions, it certainly is not to represent American people, only American profits.
The government serves to represent itself, mostly. The bit about American profits is misleading and in poor taste. An example follows: many well-intentioned people complain about the profits that oil and gas companies make (especially when prices rose drastically from traditional levels the past few years on gasoline) never realizing that our government makes more profit per gallon of gas than the oil company does and its because of taxes.
You asked me in another thread why I felt taxes were evil. The answer is because they take what I or anyone has earned, give it to people who cannot help but represent their own interests, and for face value the publics’ when necessary, and give it to whomever they please with no accountability. We are taxed so many times over on the same dollar we make, per dollar, its ridiculous.
American governance simply believes, probably wholeheartedly, that defending these profits is improving peoples' lot.
I think the most obvious and basic philosophy you have missed in the American economic system is its not about protecting profits (you are showing your bias towards socialism here by viewing wealth as a static resource to be stolen, redistributed, and otherwise removed from the hands of people who make it to give to other people who it has been determined need it more), its about protecting ones right and capacity to create
Its amazing how this idea hasn't permeated much farther into our world. Perhaps too many older cultures are still stuck in their own, old, and in my opinion, somewhat outdated ways (I am not saying all systems other than a capitalistic model are outdated or irrelevant, but there are many such systems of economic governance that should have gotten the axe long ago) (and here I am showing my bias for our system).
Why did AIG pay out those bonuses?
Because our government cut them a check with no oversight. The first problem was the cutting-them-the-check part.
Why was San Lu comfortable poisoning (and killing) babies?
I know nothing about this.
Why does the local pub water down your beer?
Um, you need to find a different pub.
Why are the most desperate offered easy credit at insufferably high interest?
Why are the most successful punished for their success by having to subsidize the most desperate? I'm not saying assistance in some form should be denied those who deserve the help, I am saying those who use the system to live for essentially nothing should be weeded out and left on their own. The "octo-mom" is a clear example. Already on welfare with six children, a doctor saw fit to give her fertility drugs to have octuplets (although I'm sure neither were sure how many babies would result at the start). The doctor should see some disciplinary action, and the woman should not be allowed to abuse the system. But hooray for socialism!
Why are a cadre of airlines running an international price-fixing game?
Because governments collaborate with them for their own gain with no regard for the passengers. Take Pan-Am as example back in Howard Hughes’ days. They tried to prosecute Hughes on trumped up charges to ruin his ability to compete with Pan-Am in an international market. This has nothing to do with an economic system but a corrupt government and a more corrupt base philosophy- the same philosophy that held all the kings and small "ruling elite" in power across the world before the term capitalism ever existed.
Why are still-profitable companies cutting thousands of jobs?
Matt, how much have you studied business theory, operations, and management and the entire cadre of other topics here related? The answer is to stay in business.
Business are not static features of the Earth's landscape. They are evolutionary organisms. Sometimes some of the population perishes in order to sustain the species and in those instances, in those times of vast environmental uncertainty, those who make the right decision the fastest live to grow and expand when more stable environmental conditions arise. The unstable conditions in the above example is the world-widening depression, more particularly our own economic recession in the U.S.
Why does the business world, for all its successes, thrive in such a sociopathic way?
Why do governments?
Under Capitalism we offer incentives for all these behaviours. [/quotes]
And here it is. Here is the master-stroke of misleading tripe designed to make capitalism look despicable and your own intended system look superior. Capitalism does not offer incentives for such bad business decisions as have been made in the recent past. Under capitalism all those business’ would have failed or been forced to restructure themselves (under our established bankruptcy laws of which I have witnessed secondhand such a company restructure that went into bankruptcy and has since emerged and is growing stronger).
The government, operating on the tenets of socialism, saw fit to save these businesses because they only consider the short term ramifications. Our government has shown the world that if you create a big enough business in the United States, if you employ many thousands of people, it does not matter how terribly you screw up, you will get a free check in the mail to bail you out. Our government is offering incentives for these masochistic business philosophies. And you blame it on a system that would have corrected itself had no interference been administered. It really is a thing of beauty how that mis-direction works.
To Fuzzies Second Post:
Bearing in mind Obama is catering to the fundamental opposition of a free-market capitalist economy by allowing the government to dictate what businesses can or cannot do. The government gives out money that is not theirs, to companies that should not receive it, with the only strings attached to serve as a governmental power play to expand their rights over the large business sectors.
[quote]Bearing in mind, of course, that these CEOs live like sultans while 400,000 workers in their industry get the chop. ...and yet, it is true that demand has dropped massively.
You demonstrate conflicting ideals here but I'll address that in a moment. If you notice you had to invoke the image of Sultans, people with positions that arose in a system that catered to autocratic and oligarchic power with little regard for their subjects to get a step up as might be afforded them in a capitalistic system. I say might because it does depend on the ambition and personality of said person.
The part of your statement beyond the “…” indicates you saw some of the layoffs to be necessary. Would you favor a company that laid no one off and everyone lost their job when it failed? Circuit City in the U.S. recently was dissolved because of, from what I know and observe, a terrible business model. Had they closed even just half of their stores and redirected their resources to the remaining half, they might have once again emerged more favorably. But instead the entire corporation is being liquidated. While this creates a temporary
hardship on those workers affected, the company pursuing the direction it chose does not create a welfare burden to the rest of the system.
You act as if a business owner’s sole responsibility is to cater to his employee’s needs. This is not a the purpose of a business. The purpose is to make money. The purpose to work for a business is to make money.
Did Obama let the company's fold? Would you have preferred that, despite the many hundreds of thousands more who would lose their jobs? (And then faced on of the worst job markets in decades).
Yes! Emphatically! It would have been much better had the companies in question gone into Chapter 11 of the Backruptcy code. The job market might not even be that uncertain since Billions upon Billions of dollars would be available for other uses. Instead, failure was rewarded, the government has begun a powerplay starting with the larger corporations to dictate who will or will not run them (the power of pull pervades ever further into society) and the image of Capitalism is distorted because of the tenets of socialism that are destroying it.
No matter what he choose, it would have had a terrible cost in human capital.
And instead of affecting the relatively smaller population of people (i.e. the employees) his decisions are affecting the entire company far more.
The bailout is an abhorrent prop up for the worst business leaders money has bought, and those intelligent who labour under the misapprehension that this mess isn't a product of free-market Capitalism see that clearly.
But its not a free market! NAFTA along with numerous other governmental laws, regulations and influence has distorted how the system works. I do not think that there should be zero regulation, I want to make that clear. I think that it should be a bare minimum and focus along the lines of preventing businesses from causing harm to others. And that’s it. The government shouldn’t be able to give money to any businesses except in the form of loans, which are to be paid back. There were no strings attached to the billions handed out and the politicians in charge have the audacity to express outrage at the result?
It is a Government putting up a temporary prop for its Capitalist economy.
Once again, this thinking is not a tenet of capitalism. The U.S. is slowly becoming a welfare state and if the disaster of socialized medicine hits, that’s nearly game over to the way of life the U.S. has developed. And no matter how you try to demonize that image, the point is that by and large, the standard of living and the quality of wealth has been so expanded by the U.S. in our own country that there is no direct comparison to many third world nations. The model, when un-tampered with, can work, and does raise the overall wealth of all parties involved, albeit not at the same rate. Wealth is not a static resource.
Forget GM, it is our way of life that needs a shake up.
way of life should replace whose
in your mind’s eye?In reply to Ananya
Meanwhile, I like that idea of starting the kitchen garden in the white house by Michelle Obama. We treehuggers are very happy to hear of this.
Is this anything more than a publicity stunt? I haven’t personally heard of the garden before, but did Michelle ever grow her own food before the presidency? If not, I shall agree with the former question.
Apropos to the Company Takeover - doesn't that mean that it will be nationalised? I think thats very good.
You think nationalization is good? Is that why so many Illegal immigrants, especially from Mexico try to get into the U.S.? If nationalization is that perfect, why aren’t American’s seeking out the Mexican dream? Or according to your point below, the Venezualan dream?
How might your view of the world differ if you were in a lower caste in India? Or had been born into a lower caste? (as far as I know, which I could be wrong, the caste system is still very much thriving).
Nationalisation of any private asset means that the owners cannot retrench people at their whim and fancy. They have to pay them a pre-decided standard in wages, which means it may eat into the company profit's but the worker who slaves to get the company where it has been today, is not the first one to get the raw deal when things start going bad.
When, in the entire history of business operations, has firing people at one’s whim and fancy ever
, let me repeat, ever
resulted in a positive trend of success for a business? Nationalizing a business means taking control of all its assets. This includes the workers who are human capital as fuzzies said earlier. Nationalization is government ownership of your job, and through proxy, your lives (since that job determines your welfare). My God Ananya, did it work all that well for Russia? Or, to be more accurate, the U.S.S.R. What happened to their economy in 1991? What happened to their people who were slaves to the whims of the political party exalting the Red state and the benefits of living for your brother?
It is always, always
in the best interest of the company to properly manage all its resources, including its workers.
Do you think back in the days of Henry Ford a government run Ford Motors would have paid its workers 5 dollars a day, far above the standard of the day? Of course it wouldn’t. The government would keep the profits. All you are advertising is reducing the rights of citizens in favor of expanding government control and power.
Nationalisation means the nation has a large stake in the running of the company... Now how can this be bad?
This means that whatever faction gains power in the government controls the stakes of everyone and has no obligation to support anyone’s interests but their own. This is a throw-back to a feudal kingdom of the middle ages. Perhaps you would like to be the happy ignorant peasant who slaves
all day harvesting crops only to barely survive and watch as his masters grow fat on the fruits of his labor. All this time this is what you and fuzzies have been describing as capitalism, and all this time, this is the fallacy of your argument.
If a worker is truly being “used,” they are not obligated to stay at a company. If your government controls the very aspects of your lives, you are obligated to accept their final word. Which sounds more like slavery to you?