gravel switched parties, thread just to continue our conversation pb
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Reading Material
- How the Housing Crisis/Economic Meltdown Came to Be
- Online FREE! Documentary List
- Good News Network
- The Atlantic
- Danger Room
- Little Green Footballs
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Firedoglake
- Daily Kos
- Arab News
- NT Times Election Results info
- World Net Daily
- The War Room
- White House
- Supreme Court
- US Senate
- US House of Reps
- On the Issues
- Politico
- Pandagon
- AlJazeera
- NY Times
- China Daily
- Think Progress
- The Raw Story
- BBC News
- HTML Coding for the Blog
Looking back...
-
▼
2008
(178)
-
▼
March
(18)
- Esoteric Agenda
- Well, great.
- Fed Watch
- what does the T stand for?
- "Ima tell this nigga when I see him, “Stop that bu...
- We outsource pregnancy now
- Gravel switching
- Some voting information.
- Frontline: Bush's War
- Did you know this about No Child Left Behind?
- oh boy.
- I'm beginning to think they are trying to tell us ...
- Stuff I've found interesting/appalling lately...
- Rough, rugged, and raw - G-style bankrolling
- "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this...
- I thought this was humorous...
- So, it already exists?
- Milton Friedman on Limited Government
-
▼
March
(18)
Tags
- 9/11 (1)
- ACORN (1)
- activism (1)
- advertising (1)
- afghanistan (1)
- Alex Jones (1)
- Aliens (2)
- anheuser-busch (1)
- arab throwing shoes (1)
- ASAT (1)
- ASU (1)
- atheism (1)
- auto-tune the news (1)
- awakening (1)
- bailout (3)
- bank of america (1)
- Banking (1)
- barack obama (5)
- Barcelona (1)
- BASE (1)
- beer (1)
- ben bernanke (1)
- bernanke bucks (2)
- blagojevich (1)
- bp (1)
- brad sherman (1)
- Budget (2)
- bullshit (1)
- Bush (4)
- Bush is an idiot (1)
- bush's picks (1)
- CFR (2)
- change (1)
- Chelsea (3)
- cheney (1)
- China (7)
- Chris Dodd (1)
- citigroup (1)
- civil rights (1)
- civil unrest (1)
- cnn (1)
- Colbert (3)
- Common Market (1)
- condoms (1)
- constitution (1)
- consumerism (1)
- Contractors (1)
- corruption (1)
- crossdressing justice (1)
- Cuba (1)
- culture (1)
- currency (1)
- david (1)
- democracy (1)
- dentist (1)
- DHS (1)
- documentaries (2)
- doin it big willy style (1)
- dolla dolla bills y'all (2)
- Earmarks (1)
- economic crisis (2)
- ECONOMICS (2)
- Economy (3)
- EconTalk (2)
- enlightenment (1)
- environment (1)
- esoteric agenda (1)
- Essien (1)
- Eternal (Salv)(Damn)ation (1)
- fall (1)
- Federal Reserve (13)
- Federalism (1)
- Firefighters (1)
- FISA (4)
- Flying Spaghetti Monster (2)
- football (3)
- foreclosure (1)
- free energy (1)
- freedom to fascism (1)
- friendly fire (1)
- Frogs (1)
- FRONTLINE (1)
- garden (1)
- general motors (1)
- geraldine ferraro (1)
- god (2)
- gold standard (2)
- google (1)
- google trends (1)
- Great Depression: Part Deux (1)
- gresham's law (1)
- Guns (2)
- H20 (1)
- Hamas (1)
- hillary clinton (1)
- hitler (1)
- holy shitballs (1)
- homebrew (1)
- Huckabee (1)
- Human Rights (2)
- humanism (1)
- I Swear I'm Not Racist (1)
- immigration (1)
- impeachment (2)
- imperialism (1)
- inbev (1)
- international banking (1)
- International Organizations (1)
- internet (1)
- IOUSA (1)
- Iran (4)
- Iraq (3)
- IRAQ WAR (1)
- Israel (3)
- jeezy (1)
- john muir trail (1)
- Joke (1)
- Jordan (1)
- karl rove (1)
- kathy griffin (1)
- keith olbermann (1)
- Klein Bottle (1)
- kosovo (1)
- leaks (1)
- LIMITED GOVERNMENT (2)
- Lupe Fiasco (1)
- mafia (1)
- magnet (1)
- march (1)
- Marijuana (5)
- martial law (2)
- McCain (4)
- MILTON FRIEDMAN (1)
- Mind Control (1)
- misinformation (1)
- monetary policy (1)
- money (1)
- morality (1)
- mri (1)
- murder (1)
- NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY (1)
- naomi klein (1)
- NAU (1)
- NCLB (1)
- neocon (1)
- non violent protest (2)
- noose (1)
- O'Brein (1)
- oil (6)
- Olbermann (2)
- oprah (1)
- Organski (1)
- overfishing (1)
- overpopulation (1)
- Palestine (3)
- Panda (1)
- peace out (1)
- Pentagon (1)
- perspctv (1)
- Peter Schiff (1)
- physics (1)
- pipelines (1)
- PNAC (1)
- Political Hip-Hop (1)
- Premier League (1)
- preparedness (1)
- presidential election (2)
- price gouging (1)
- prison (1)
- protest (1)
- race (1)
- racism (1)
- rap (1)
- renewable energy (2)
- revolution (1)
- rick astley (1)
- Ron Paul (2)
- Russia (1)
- sarah palin (2)
- Saudi Arabia (1)
- scientology (1)
- scooters (1)
- shell (1)
- Sichuan (1)
- slave trade (2)
- smog (1)
- solar energy (1)
- sources (1)
- Sovereignty (1)
- Space (1)
- stamp (1)
- State of the Union (1)
- Stewart (1)
- stimulus (2)
- stingrays (1)
- survivalism (2)
- sustainability (1)
- Technology (1)
- tele-com (1)
- Terrorism (2)
- timothy geithner (1)
- tin foil hat award (1)
- Torture (1)
- trade deficit (1)
- TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR (1)
- treasury (1)
- tron (1)
- vacation (1)
- Video Games (1)
- vote (1)
- vote flipping (2)
- voter fraud (1)
- voter suppression (1)
- war (1)
- War crimes (1)
- Weapons (1)
- Weatherman (1)
- Whoopi Goldberg (1)
- Wizardry (1)
- Yikes (1)
- zeitgeist (2)
- zombies (2)
14 comments:
thats true that less government regulation means more revenue created, but the problems come with a)how that revenue is created and b)who actually reaps the benefits (gets the revenue). I too trust people to spend their own money, but it's the system, not people's decisions that are flawed... well the housing and credit crisis would argue that people's decisions are flawed as well, but ignoring that...
I know you don't have many texts so I drew up this thread.
Capitalism aims to lower production costs, so it can produce and sell as much product as possible. Within such a system the capitalist power hierarchy allows for the state with the more powerful economy to dictate market terms, and therefore production requirements to the states with comparatively weaker economies. A state relying on cash crops to bolster its economy illustrates the poorer end of capitalist power relationships. for example, Barbados and the sugar crop. During the colonial period the British set up a colony in Barbados to develop sugar plantations and increase production and sale of sugar. Barbados became an extension of the British Empire so England could extract natural resources that would increase its already more powerful economy. Such an endeavor did not benefit Barbados, but created a system where its economy relied on the cash crop for centuries. Though the Barbados-sugar example occurred during the colonial period, the same system evolved and continues in the Modern period. Barbados economy, instead of developing sustainable, substantive agriculture, depends on growing sugar and the sugar market that England established. The sugar market with Western powers means that Barbados, along with other formerly colonized Caribbean states, depends on the export of their developed cash crop. Centering the state’s agriculture on a crop developed for export fails to provide for crops meant for consumption. While a state like Barbados grows and exports a crop like sugar, it must import foods for consumption that allow its people to survive. Such a system traps whole societies in a cycle of production and export of luxury goods and import of survival goods. The system affects Barbadian agricultural relationships to the environment, by allowing Barbados to mainly produce cash crops meant for export. This changed relationship distances Barbadians from their land, dictating true land ownership in Barbados to those who buy the sugar. thats just the international beef with libertarian economics. Domestically, the beef has been beat into the ground... job loss, low wages, low to no workers' rights/benefits... workers don't even control their own labor, the capitalists do. the capitalists, the ones who can afford to invest, reap the benefits of further free markets. capitalism is not completely healthy in the long term, or for anyone except the minority that gets paid. I'm not trying to bite the hand that feeds, but capitalism is a flawed system. and libertarianism, as unfettered capitalism causes negative impact for the losers of capitalism.
the story of stuff... whoever posted that a few months ago, that is the shit, thank you.
Yo dude, good idea. I wasn't talking about international economics because I don't believe that free trade is always fair, especially for developing countries. It isn't up to the American government to dictate to other countries that they aren't allowed protective tariffs. Those protect home industry and allows the particular country to develop. When it sees fit it may allow other products in their country which would stimulate the economy. Nobody wants only products made only in their country for a lot of reasons. Where would we be without Japanese computer technology? But lets take microchip technology, say Barbados decides to tax imported microchips to allow their own computer industry to develop. If Japan were to step in and not allow that to happen then the market would be flooded with Japanese chips and no industry would develop. But if Barbados developed that industry which could compete internationally then there would be no reason to maintain those tariffs and they could integrate into the global economy which would allow outside investment and an expansion of the economy. Because they were taxing imports they were probably being taxed on their exports as equal compensation. I think your beef is with capitalism and free markets and I agree. I believe that free and open markets benefit the particular country but only after they have developed to the point that open markets don't put their own industries out of business from cheap products. It is the choice of the particular country and agreements between states. I dont know much, I'm not an economist, but if libertarianism believes in forcing open markets then I guess that I'm not 100% with them.
Nationally we've created a monster. Anti-trust loopholes have taken the form of corporations. We don't have a truly free market because of the power of particular industries fueled by the unfair international treatment of small countries such as Barbados as companies such as Starbucks and Wal-Mart extract valuable natural resources and cash crops at unfair prices because they have the economic power of small countries. That is why those companies reign supreme in the U.S. because they are allowed to dictate terms internationally and thus lower prices here at home. With lower prices comes increased business and dependance, especially with the insane rise in inflation and cost of living. With a true open market the consumer and employees can dictate the terms. If a particular company is bullshitting, go next door. The power of purchase is still strong, but fading in a wal-mart only world. Also employees can dictate their own terms. If they aren't treated fair then they can go over to the competition. I know this isn't possible with the current system, but is something that we need to strive for. By putting industry such as health care in the hands of government we lower standards and competition. Competition is what causes products and businesses to evolve and get better, without incentive there is no real reason to develop. Sure there are winners and losers, but the losers can say that they have nobody to blame but themselves instead of the company that just laid them off.
Also the problem isn't just markets, but currency. With such an unstable and depreciating dollar the market is bound to fluctuate and eventually fail with the policy of "print more money". We need to fix the capital to fix capitalism. I hope all of this made sense, I need to continue writing my paper now. Thanks for the distraction.
yeah mate, big business is an extension of free markets. I don't as much think monopolies and giant corporations hijacked capitalism as capitalism allows and encourages it, which is why anti-trust legislation is drawn up (even as a front)-- to regulate the market. Libertarianism is straight market, free market, and I have nothing but kobe beef with it. I don't know if we need to fix capitalism as much as find a viable alternative and fuck capitalism off. I mean, I guess the only way change is possible is an evolution of the system, because systematic changes are a lot easier to input, since, barring armed insurrection, the old rich whities in power won't allow straight change. I'm not talking about obama change, I'm talking about real change. As for Barbados and microchip technologies, even as their economy grows and develops, they will still face the domestic capitalistic problems-- inequality (social and economic), and it won't reform their agriculture problem, and consumption will increase, first to a healthy point, but then beyond for those who own the microchip capital. fuck capitalism.
Before I wrote my last response I missed a sentence in your response of Barbadian exports reciprocally taxed on import by other nations, which would definitely happen, but inherent in that argument is that an extensive market is the solution for Barbados. Markets won't wean the dependency on foreign agriculture, or change the style of domestic farming. Markets create political stabilization because they empower a few who can enforce stability and lead the general population on. If a country like Barbados developed that sort of industry it could not develop enough economic power to overturn the established balance of power between itself and western powers, so it will always be a slave to the western powers' market terms. the countries in line to break the chains of the situation (as I know you know from former posts/discussions) are China, India, and, to a lesser extent, Brazil (to clarify, Brazil couldn't be powerful enough to challenge for hegemonic power, but can be a reckoning force, based on population and market capability) But former colonized nations will continue to fail economically while the current system of modern-day colonization exists. that's globalization, capitalism, and an unmolested market... libertarianism. Yeah, big business jacks other states' resources, but business is just the new face of the same people who up to less than a century ago stole the resources under the name of a state. It's an evolved colonial system, developed to try to hide the evil from the free reign information age, but the same principles and problems exist. And it's the nature of the system. The current system is life under capitalism. Without extreme government protection and income redistribution the system will remain fucked. Even with that I still wouldn't like capitalism, because capitalists steal all profit. A worker gets not what she/he is due, but what the capitalist wants to pay her/him (or what the government dictates the capitalist must pay) either way the system pits those who have to work against those who can buy. Throw a wal-mart into the situation and the decline of industry due to globalization, you have domestic slavery. bullshit. If the deficiency of capitalism interests whoever reads this, Richard Robbins, a professor at SUNY Pitt... something or other, writes great books on the subject you can probably find articles and chapters by him in JSTOR or EBSCOhost.
and I have to comment on blogger.com's letter recognition or whatever, the mechanism that ensures you're not a robot, how do you tell the difference between v's and u's? I can't do it. it's really annoying. I just got the string of words wrong twice. that's embarrassing.
Ok this gets harder and harder the further down I go because I can't read and respond at the same time. I do not believe that slight inequality is necessarily a bad thing, as long as a certain threshold is reached for the misfortunate. Inequality is inherent in competition, and competition is necessary for development and refinement. A large inequality gap isn't inevitable but inequality should only go so far as effort lets fit (if that made sense). In a true free market, I mean a dream world of mine, the employer and consumer set the standards. This starts with an educated public, along with any other issue we can discuss as leading to inequality. As long as the people are dumb and satisfied, inequality will reign supreme. Well in my dream world, competition will be so prevalent that employees will be competed for. So that if they aren't treated great they can go to the competition. The problem with unfair business practices is maybe why do some places have lower prices then others? Mostly they save on cheap overseas labor, cheap overseas resources, and cheap 'minimum wage' labor in America. They also depend on these low earners to shop at their low quality shop and perceive it as normal so that unrest doesn't exist. Perhaps we need to fix prices so that the power of mass purchasing is removed. The price variety needs to be set on the refinement of the resource and not very on the resource itself. Colonization and unfair market conditions are not libertarian free market economics because they weren't set on the standards of the marketplace but rather development, technology, and military might. You're right, though, it may be too late for all of that. Like I said, just a dreamworld.
slight inequality isn't present in any successful capitalist system today, nor has it ever been. The closest to slight inequality is in Northern European countries with their welfare states, but now their economies aren't so hot, because the society has failed to find a replacement incentive for competition. The inequalities people have experienced/continue to experience are loud and large. True, competition can be, and presently is, the main driving force of production within a society. That doesn't mean it's the only mechanism capable of accomplishing production. That's the major question of alternatives to capitalism, how to create incentive without competition. Enter education. The necessity of sustainable living will become more and more prevalent as humans continue to extract resources and degrade the environment. The necessity of a fair mode of system of production/consumption will become more and more prevalent as the inequality gap continues to grow and a larger percent of the population is poor. So far the mechanism of education has not been successful as a replacement for competition. A large inequality gap is inevitable with free markets, that's a fact. The dream world you mention is not a free market, because you have controls on the market, though it is a happy vision. The idea of employees having leverage over their employers through options of alternative employment is optimistic, but impossible. If employers are seeking employees to the point where an employee can gain better benefits/wages, that can only be possible if a large amount of the population is unemployed. The truth is that there is competition for jobs, which drives wages/benefits down. That's not the problem though, competition for jobs can't be helped, everyone needs to eat. I agree that the problems you mention are causes of unfair business practices. colonialism was based on the conditions you mention, that's true, but arguing for free markets institute a free market system on the colonial system. Meaning the power and trade relationships and hierarchies that exist will deepen with free markets, for the reasons mentioned in my last couple comments. So though the colonial system was not developed through free markets, free markets are a mechanism used now to reinforce that system. It's a nice dream world, but it could not possibly function.
I should clarify my the point about employees gaining leverage through alternative employment. That happens on a small scale now, but the alternative employment options do not occupy a large part of the market necessary for employees to achieve better wages.
if you click said... after the commenter's name it minimizes the comment.
Post a Comment