----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intent of capitalism defined: opinion based upon Adam Smiths texts in the Wealth of nations.\\ circa 1778:
"...........Trade
and marketing under the guise of Capitalism, is as a tool, more rightly
designed for the benefit of the entirety of a society. However one must
be always wary of the merchants enhanced abilities over the ordinary
citizen, via their benefits toward the accumulation of greater wealth,
to widen the market to their own designs, which may well stand against
the good of the society's structure itself.........."
July Posting for economics section; www.jamesconvey.com ............." An Alternate Economic Universe is unfolding"........( Let's get it right this time)
There is indeed an 'alternate universe' developing beyond the influence of the once mighty Anglo America capitalist system. The
Global market has been stripped, or some say perhaps even raped,
primarily by the Anglo/American capitalist model of trickle down,
'laissez faire' idiocy, which dominated all trade and manufacture in the
present era.
In trying to reset the timer, the new emerging economic Asian powers, together with Europe and other stronger economies, Turkey, Russia Brazil, etc, will demand and are already in the process, of setting the stages for a new, more rigidly monitored form of capitalism, to serve common unfolding 21st century economic realities!
To avoid any confrontational effect and what America
must avoid, is any petulant disregard of these oncoming Global economic
realities. Also to abandon the continuing of any strident jingoistic
viewpoint, that they (America) are all that matter! This narcissistic
petulance, if permitted to continue to infect their electoral processes,
and so see this form of economic animus to disastrously result in a
return to the 'single nation above all' objectivist folly of the just
past era!
Some
new form of empirical dominion over the Global marketplace, with the
current GOP at the helm? This 'America or nothing' outcome will be met
with major Global resistance and may well place America in a position,
whereby they become a marginalized society, fighting economic battles
for survival on all sides. A very dangerous outcome and to be avoided
at all costs!
It would seem the solution for America, to avoid
such an economic catastrophe , must be at some point a recognition of
the real truths of their economic weaknesses? And that the widening gap
between the majority of their citizenry and the controllers of wealth,
is a historically recognized formula for national disaster! This then
must lead America back to the path of economic social sobriety. Whereby
all nations on the planet including America, can then function in a
competitive and mixed economic system, where balance is maintained
between the factors of capital and labor to serve the health of all
societies.
Where the definitions of liquidity in financial
institutions are once again rigidly enforced, asset valuation equations
standardized, central administrative oversight of the public accounts,
on budgetary, debt issues and GDP calculation, at the national level!
And where wealth accumulation for it's own sake, is abandoned as the
only tenet defining a successful individual or community!
This
must become the 'work in progress agenda' of all leaders of nations for
the foreseeable future. It must be carried out from positions of some
economic common ground and understanding and acceptance of the concept
of an economic logic for the greater good of all. This commonality of
treaty if agreed to, would serve to avoid any chance of rancorous trade
debates exploding into undesired confrontations, between any individual
nation, one with the other!
The
challenge is at hand and given the developing ability of the peoples of
the world to communicate, to learn from each other and to watch the
effort, as well as judge the outcomes.................... Politicians
and leaders must serve as never before, in a combined effort to please
their now "Global constituents".
James M. Convey
I think a couple of articles I came across recently will help to define the scope of this topic.
ReplyDeleteOne is from a a professor at MIT regarding the effects of technology on the job market. This dovetails with what Robert Reich has been saying: that increases in efficiency through automation is eliminating more jobs than it is creating.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/09/mit-professor-warns-of-enormous-disruption-from-rapid-technological-growth/
The other is an interesting web site from J.Kelvyn Richards. (You can read up on him at his site.
I give this example from his web site. He cites a quote from Einstein that is relevant to his premise:
. . . " Albert Einstein observed :
A human being is part of the whole, called by us, universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something
separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our
personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by
widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a
human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require
a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."
James, I think this echos something you have been saying - in various ways for some time, and that is: We must (also) free ourselves from the thinking that, what we have always believed must be the absolute truth because we've always believed it, in and of itself. I am specifically referring to economics and the Western belief that "free market capitalism" will always magically make things better - for everyone. I have spoken of this before; that there really isn't any such thing as "free market capitalism" as the term is usually thrown around by politicians and business leaders. (I still hope to make my thoughts on the matter the topic of an upcoming post.)
Oops, in my previous comment, I forgot to list the second URL - for the website of J.Kelvyn Richards.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kelvynrichards.com/
LOU:
ReplyDeleteGood old Einstein........ Other great minds also think alike:
Edward O. Wilson posited in his recent papers;
“...........It's obvious that the key problem facing humanity in the coming century is how to bring a better quality of life -- for 8 billion or more people -- without wrecking the environment entirely in the attempt............”
........In the end ... success or failure will come down to an ethical decision, one on which those now living will be judged for generations to come..............”
One point on the use of capital and labor. A question for all to ponder when t comes to the national question of ethics in business?
ReplyDelete"........What if it had been a requirement of the capital segment of an advanced society in this modern era, that would be western democracies in general, to simply assure common standards of labor across national and international boundaries?
What if Apple or Nike for instance had to uphold these standards in foreign markets as well as domestic? One can easily intellectually contrive of a leveling of labor standards within a Global context. A system that would protect economies from any excesses in the demand and supply equations? It would not affect to any great degree the competition factors as these are recognized as more of a marketing challenge in the normal competitive environment of trade and manufacture.
As an analyst for me that is the true source of the 'out of whack' dynamic that caused the furor now known as exporting jobs overseas!
The cure on paper may be simple logic for me, but achieving it would almost certainly require that wars be again fought.......... over simple logic? That is the folly of greed and the out of control drive and insane hunger for accumulation of wealth? That is also why we need "good" representative democratic government.
I was reading one of Paul Krugman's recent (as of 7/19/12) articles in the NYT called "Pathos of the Plutocrats".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/krugman-pathos-of-the-plutocrat.html?_r=1&hp
I think it's fair to say that the super-rich live in their own alternative universe, economic and otherwise. This probably has always been true, in varying degrees, for many centuries. Krugman is only pointing out the latest current version of that reality.
Not only is Krugman's article interesting, the comments from the some of the readers are really outstanding. Here is a sampling of two of them:
"You don't have to search very far to find examples of Obscene Wealth Derangement Syndrome. Ann Romney went on TV Thursday to whine that she and Mitt had already given "you people" enough. How dare "we people" demand to see their volumes of records and hidden assets? If we weren't so dense, we could find out what decent millionaires they are just by looking at them!
The real poster children for the oligarchy are the six Walmart heirs, who possess more wealth ($93 billion) than 41% of all Americans combined. But do they pay a living wage to their employees, or provide health insurance, or a pension plan? Don't make them howl with disdainful laughter.
To the contrary -- they get corporate welfare in the form of Medicaid for their part-timers and tax breaks and subsidies too numerous to mention. Yet, Senate Republicans just filibustered to death a bill that would have simply taken away the tax deduction for moving expenses that they and other corporations claim when they ship our manufacturing jobs overseas. The Waltons and the Bains and the Jeff Immelts and the Romneys of the earth demand every last ounce of flesh.
We may be unable to stop them, but we can certainly try to slow them down with journalistic muckraking and street marches and boycotts and aiming a relentless light on their evil ways. If their feelings get hurt -- so much the better. Although looking at Mitt, I doubt if he's ever felt a pang of remorse his life."
And . .. .
"The IRS income tax evasion code was written by rich people for rich people through legal bribes of Congress.
Half of all the capital gains and dividends and their unusually low tax rates accrue to the richest one tenth of one percent 0.1% - or just 310,000 fabulously wealthy Americans.
The 'carried interest exemption' is a 15% income tax rate for struggling hedge fund millionaires and Clueless Mitt.
The 72,000-page tax code is an annual Christmas gift to the wealthy.
Tax returns are paved with gold for the wealthy; it's less of a joy ride for the middle class and the poor.
Anyone with a shred of decency, morality and humanity would be railing against the rigged tax code and its gross unfairness, inhumanity and disgusting, corrosive effect on national finances and income inequality.
Mittens and the deranged GOPers suggest that Obama's call for tax fairness is an attack on the rich, but the opposite is naturally true when members of the Crazy Liars Club speak --- the current tax code is and has been a massive assault on the poor and middle class since it was hijacked by the Reaganista-Norquist-Voodooers who swore on their fake Bibles that Massive Republican Deficits Don't Matter...... until a black man is President.
The 1% have job offshored, minimum waged, tax evaded, and self-arbitrated their way into a plutocratic wonderland of diamonds, chandeliers and golden urinals, but they want more ?
It's hard to believe you can spell the word 'sociopath' without GOP."
. . . . . A little harsh, perhaps; but, not by that much.
My comment may be slightly off topic, but I liked the comments from the readers so much that I had to write about them. James, your article is as good a fit for them as any other here. :)
Now for something different. Here is an article I just came across from someone who I think I agree with, although I need to read more about his positions; Neil Barofsky, He has a good coming out that apparently says that President Obama is not as anti-banking (or anti-corporate) as is generally thought.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/former-bailout-watchdog-neil-barofsky-to-launch-tell-all-book-about-obama-administration.html
Also just read a review of a relatively new book by the director of the documentary. "Inside Job", Charles Ferguson, called "Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America. I am a big fan of that documentary.
Here are some interesting tidbits. According to Ferguson:
1)From 2000 to the financial meltdown of 2008, what percentage of mortgages were used to finance purchases of the buyer's first home?
Fewer than 10%. Many more mortgages were taken out to buy a second home, refinance a prior mortgage or extract equity out of a home.
2) Between 2000 and 2006, how much did prices of U.S. homes increase?
According to the U.S. National Home Price Index, home prices doubled --- the largest, fastest increase in history.
3) Some believe that the subprime bubble was caused by deadbeats who scammed their way into mortgages. What percentage of people who gave fraudulent data to get subprime loans during these years had help from mortgage brokers?
80%.
4) By 2005 what percentage of all American GDP growth was housing-related?
50%.
5) In 2004 the SEC voted unanimously to a) limit leverage at investment banks to 20% b) limit leverage to 50% or c) let investment banks calculate their own leverage limits.
c) The banks could set their own limits
6) In the third quarter of 2007, when Merrill Lynch was falling apart, how often did its CEO, Stan O'Neal, play golf? a) not at all. b) once. c) 20 times.
c) He played golf 20 times
7) Ferguson writes: "The President and senior administration officials have portrayed themselves as frustrated and hamstrung --- desirous of punishing those responsible for the crisis but unable to do so because their conduct wasn't illegal, and/or the federal government lacks sufficient power to sanction them." Ferguson finds this view a) "sad but true" b) proof that "Wall Street rules" or c) "complete horses--t."
c) "complete horses--t."
8) In the past decade, how much has the financial services industry given to American politicians? a) $500 million b) $1 billion c) $5 billion.
c) $5 billion.
9) How does the U.S. rank in broadband deployment? a) first b) twentieth c) fiftieth.
b) twentieth.
10) What does the American telecommunications industry spend more on? a) lobbying b) research & development.
a) lobbying.
11) In 2009, Britain enacted a tax on banking bonuses. At what rate? a) 15% b) 25% c) 50%.
50%.
James, I wanted to comment on your reply: "What if it had been a requirement of the capital segment of an advanced society in this modern era, that would be western democracies in general, to simply assure common standards of labor across national and international boundaries?
ReplyDeleteWhat if Apple or Nike for instance had to uphold these standards in foreign markets as well as domestic?"
That is the kind of alternative economic thinking that needs to be discussed. But you may be right when you say "but achieving it would almost certainly require that wars be again fought." Folly of greed; indeed, my friend.
There would almost certainly be a mad cry of "socialism" and "one-world government", etc., from the puppets of the corporate elite. Those people are manipulated into supporting causes that directly harm them, in the same way that southern generals were able to convince some black slaves to fight for the Confederacy.
LOU and John C :
ReplyDeletean aside to offer my condolences to my American friends on the seemingly now regular occurrences of mass violence. With this latest example in Aurora Co. Guns Guns Guns.I offer the following as an opinion only and that we need to protect our children from all and any unjust pressures.
The basis of all our beliefs come from established indoctrinal systems. The results can be at times these poisonous events in Aurora Co and Columbine etc etc etc; Pressure to be what conforms to some truth, that may be even mystical or illogical, puts extreme pressures upon "highly strung" fragile intellects. Not an excuse for evil, but certainly offers more understanding of what may be present as the potential trigger?
That said ease of access to such weaponry remains the proximate cause of so many being victims of this young mans journey into insanity>
".....We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the record may seem superficial, but it is indelible. You cannot educate a man wholly out of superstitious fears which were implanted in his imagination, no matter how utterly his reason may reject them........"
--Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., US jurist (1841 - 1935)--
John C, if you are reading this: In the previous thread, you had asked me a question about something I said. You asked me what I meant by a theoretically equal unit of future productivity gain is being distributed unequally. An answer to that question is partly contained in this interview piece with Richard Wolff, a PhD Economist professor. I have recently been exposed to his thinking, and I like what he has to say.
ReplyDeletehttp://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7911:the-crisis-of-capitalism-with-richard-wolff-in-conversation-with-robert-ovetz-phd
I think his point of view is very much in line with the concept that we need to seriously think about alternative economic processes.
The following information is yet another in a long line of statistics showing that corporations pay less taxes than we realize, and a lot less than they supposedly pay if you listen to conservative pundits. We need an alternative tax structure in this country. 72,000 pages (and counting) of tax code is a continuing and expanding gift to corporate America and extremely wealthy individuals.
ReplyDeleteI particularly like this statistic: In the 1960s, corporate taxes covered one-quarter of total federal spending. In the 1990s, the average dropped to 11 percent and, by fiscal 2010, corporate tax revenue covered a tiny 6 percent of federal government spending.
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf
This is probably a good time to revisit a link I had posted on a previous thread about taxes. The statistics in this link show the same trends from a different perspective.
http://americawhatwentwrong.org/stories/who-pays-taxes/
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI am still here but finding it difficult to keep up with the discussion. I appreciate your keeping things going.
I did a web search on Richard D. Wolfe. This is the first paragraph.
--------------------------------------------------
Richard D. Wolff (born April 1, 1942, Youngstown, Ohio) is an American economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis. He is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Utah, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City. In 2010, Wolff published Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It, also released as a DVD. He will release three new books in 2012: Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism, with David Barsamian (San Francisco: City Lights Books), Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian, with Stephen Resnick (Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT University Press), and Democracy at Work (Chicago: Haymarket Books).
---------------------------------------------------
Is this the person that you reference in the video? Do you
subscribe to Marxian economics?
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI watched with interest the Wolff/Ovits video and then read a couple of Wolff’s articles on the website you references. While I do not necessarily subscribe to Marxian Economics (I have not studied it), Wolff’s ideas make a lot of sense. His thesis seems to focus on wage stagnation which started in the 1970’s and was caused by an expanded work force caused by (1) globalization, (2) computerization/increased productivity and (2) influx of women in the workforce. This allowed employers to benefit from the age old supply demand curve.
What Wollf does not address in the articles that I read is a couple of things:
(1) The expansion of women in the work force presumably caused an expansion of household income at least in those households where there were two wage earners. This should have reduced debt in these households. This is not addressed leading the reader to believe that all wage earners were effected.
(2) Educated workers are not addressed. This is typical. Economists seem to average all statistics without digging deeper into the causes. I think that if Wolff did this he might find that educated workers did just fine when the work force expanded. Again conclusions seem to be all people suffered from the expansion of the workforce.
(3) Wolff does not seem to mention the impressive stock market expansion that took place between 1982 and 1999. Presumably this is due to increasing of corporate profits. With the advent of 401k’s anyone with a job had the opportunity to participate in this. With a little education on personal asset allocation, workers could have avoided the crash of 5 yrs ago too. Again the emphasis is on the segment of workers that did not take advantage of this.
(4) the generational shift from saving to spending and away from deferred pleasure. Much of the debt that has been accumulated is for "wants" not "needs".
The question that I always ask myself is how do we structure a society to address people that will not or cannot educate themselves or that will not or cannot institute even a modest savings program while giving people an incentive to sacrifice and achieve these goals. I know there are a lot of hard working people that cannot do these things but I also think that we have become too willing to accept and make excuses for people that do not work as hard as they should.
Wolff also lays a lot of the cause of the crisis on financial institutions instead of corporations that produce product. I think this is the correct emphasis. I think that way too much energy is spent on demonizing all corporations without drilling down to the really bad actors.
And to address another post of yours why don't focus on the insane concept of taking hedge fund and private equity profit at 15%. This is so wrong yet we focus on increasing taxes on corporations. Fix the carried interest tax loophole then lets see what we should do about corporations.
I apparently exceeded the character limit so here is the remainder of my thoughts for what it is worth.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I really like that Wolff tries to offer some solutions and is humble enough to suggest that they may not work. This is not common. I like that he questions Reich and Krugman as follows in this paragraph.
======================================================
Nor are solutions available in New Deal-type regulations and Keynesian deficit spending as promoted by economists Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. While the New Deal reduced capitalist excess and eased mass suffering (neither happens now), it never overcame the 1930s depression (World War II did). Capitalism's costly cycles were never stopped (eleven downturns occurred after 1941 and before the 2007 crash). Moreover, FDR's insufficient New Deal regulations and taxes on corporations and the rich were undone after 1945 as capitalists funded the politicians, parties, lobbyists and think tanks that shaped legislation and public opinion. A new New Deal now (green or otherwise) would have poorer and shorter-lived economic results. Capitalists now have greater financial resources and decades of experience in blocking and undoing limits on their wealth and freedom.
truth-out.org/news/item/10190-after-five-years-report-card-on-crisis-capitalism
===========================================================
This paragraph summarized my differences with these two gentlemen pretty well. The answer is not going further into the debt spiral but educating future business students that a strong middle class might be in their interest.
Correction
ReplyDeleteAnd to address another post of yours why don't focus on the insane concept of **taxing** hedge funds and private equity profit at 15%.
John C,
ReplyDeletePlease don't beat up the poor economists so much......:-) Given that the basic rules used by all, are within the purity of mathematics? There is not a great deal of difference for example, between the positions of a Marx as opposed to a Friedman or even a Stiglitz, or Von Mises et al, when considering their thesis interpretations of the use of capital and labor. it is well known and agreed to in the modern era, that Marx's theory on the subject, if he were alive in today's world, would probably garner him a nobel prize for economic theory.
The presumption by Americans in general, always appears to be that anything Marxist is an anathema to American values? Which of course is an ideologically based crock of bafflegab! His thesis is complimented and in some cases confirmed as brilliant, by many economists and not so far from the origins of the capitalist pathos of the 18th century, as outlined by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations.
Again we economists and analysts are always blamed for malfunctioning economies, where in fact the root cause of the abuse is nearly always the ideological factor.
JohnC:
ReplyDeleteI believe that Wolff's underlying ethos is,(a lot like myself), that we must begin to ask the serious questions (see above for one such example)and to recognize the obvious flaws in the Capitalist model currently in use in the modern era (100 years)!
One of his main points of contention for example, is to question the basis of the meritocratic system of rewards, as it applies to the social balance. He emphasizes the ongoing idiocy of a system, whereby so few can gain so much, that it becomes a detriment to the healthy balance of the social dynamic?(Inequality) In this he is aligned with many currently active economists.
This also follows along the lines of my own commentaries and beliefs, as they pertain to the dangers of those many factors, currently exacerbating the suffocation of the most important elements for a healthy society . In short these are: opportunity and entrepreneurship, education, health, research, transportation, and vital human resource management.
None on this list are clearly benefiting from the excesses of the current capital/labor model. In essence labor and effort in it's purist form, have become secondary and in many cases immaterial and even burdensome in todays corporate economic modeling!
The most significant example of this being the financial markets that trade and profit exclusively via their advanced high tech quant logic systems. Operating far removed from the normal trade and manufacture realities of society. Even in fact acting in a parasitical manner and were a causal factor in the dissembling of vital social functions of nations across the Globe. The essence of the Global crisis that is currently upon us.
JohnC: Query?
ReplyDelete"...........While the New Deal reduced capitalist excess and eased mass suffering (neither happens now), it never overcame the 1930s depression (World War II did)........."
Did you add the items in brackets? I don't think Wolff would agree (and certainly I don't) that we do not have mass suffering today? That ww2 overcame the depression is an opinion not shared by many! The point is of course moot. It did (ww2) interrupt a period of growth and improvement prewar!............( If War is the cure then lets have at it!)
I think Wolff's point in this paragraph you isolated is conclusionary and goes to support his theories that any new capital model requires a complete overthrow of the current capitalist system. I cannot go quite that far with him.
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteI guess that economists job are to point out the macro problems. I guess that leaves the solutions to the politicians yuck!
The portion between the ============= is copied from the Wolff article. I referenced the URL. I still have a tough time on the site emphasizing quotations. It is Wolff's words.
I have heard may times that the depression never fully ended until WW II. But regardless, it is my opinion that, given today's political and capitalist system, that stimulus solutions as offered by Reich and Krugman and others offer minimal help to the middle class and end up in the hands of companies and the hedge fund managers rather quickly.
JohnC: Your comment
ReplyDelete"........... it is my opinion that, given today's political and capitalist system, that stimulus solutions as offered by Reich and Krugman and others offer minimal help to the middle class and end up in the hands of companies and the hedge fund managers rather quickly........."
Reich and Krugman and others, are not just simply offering blanket stimulus as a solution. They are pushing for "Proper Stimulus implementation". This again becomes a function of the political will to install adequate regulatory protocols to eliminate the excessive influences of the capital sector over labor.
Stimulus in the current dynamic, as you point out, has inordinately "ended up" to use your phrase, in the wrong sector again enriching the capital sector! Even Wolff admits to the excessive power and expertise of the capital sector in this regard? I believe this can be changed but it will require a significant change for American business methodologies.
The new Global economic factors as I have noted before, will I believe see the dawning of a new and necessarily more balanced financial system. One of my main reasons for being so vociferous in my antagonism toward the jingoistic form of the "new" more extremist GOP in the United States. Since should they become successful, it may see the U.S become a marginalized society, standing in opposition to a new order of trade and manufacture with more accountable and restrictive banking protocols, geared toward a balanced economic model, catering more to the social and labor side of the equations.....
There is no doubt that if America chooses to maintain a jingoistic approach to Global matters the future is unsure for either social or economic security. A very dangerous potential and one that few American voters seem to be even vaguely aware of?
Regards James
JohnC:
ReplyDeleteTo quote E.O.Wilson: (see above)
........In the end ... success or failure will come down to an ethical decision, one on which those now living will be judged for generations to come..............”
JohnC.
ReplyDeleteA little American historical text for support of the importance of balance in capital and labor dynamics;
Abraham Lincoln, the first and greatest 'Republican' president, said this in his first state of the union address, 1861:
"..............It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention.
It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor.
This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent.
Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life?
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer! Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and therefore deserves much the higher consideration..........."
I would love to hear Romney or Boehner or McConnell debate this in todays out of whack inequality dynamic!......:-)
James,
ReplyDeleteA labor/capital debate might be interesting but I think that with the democrats being the party of labor and the republicans being the party of capital it is debated on a daily basis.
The debate that I am looking forward to is on the national deficit, the national debt and entitlements. With Ryan now in the picture we will get to have this important exchange of ideas and the country will get to vote on the way they want it to go. This is the way it should be.
James, I am going to ask you not to draw any conclusion about my thoughts on the subject. I think that the debt, deficit and entitlements should be addressed but I am willing to listen to how both sides will address it and decide.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to even the most slow-witted man, if he has not formed any fixed idea of them already, but the simplest most obvious thing cannot even be made clear to the most intelligent man, if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him". - Leo Tolstoy, 1897.
JohnC:
ReplyDeleteWith no intention to judge your commentary in any way. Nevertheless it is interesting how you have established the realms or paradigms of the two U.S parties. I would be horrified if our political dynamic were so easily categorized?...:-) Perhaps this is the evidence of the ultimate destruction, or at least the suffocation of what was once true in American democracy? That valued ability to compromise for the greater good and achieve progress regardless?
That your nation has "progressed" to this disjointed reality, leaves me greatly concerned for it's future. That one must feel if one is pro labor, one is automatically set as a Democrat and vice versa to the GOP for any pro capital dynamic, leaves me astounded at it's implied simplistic idiocy?
As I have queried very often in my literary endeavors, where is the home of the true altruistic conservative, in this split personality dynamic? Can one not understand the critical balance necessary between capital and labor, without being somehow branded?
I personally see the "bigger tent" of your democratic party as more inclusive and holding more promise in this regard, than the ever narrowing concepts of the extreme right and it's twisted precepts about the superiority of capital over labor? For me a nonsensical approach to economics and a stance, which has just recently been proven by horrible global results, to be a serious and flawed approach to Global trade and manufacture?
I have expressed my concerns about the potential marginalizing effects upon your nation, in my article, at the beginning of this stream. I would point out also, that the debate about capital and labor is the essential matter upon which all economic modeling is based. It is unavoidable!
The deficit and budgetary issues in your nation have, from my view as well as many others, suffered from an exaggeration of fear, due to nothing more than political 'skulduggery'. Your nation remains the richest on earth and it's potential to carry debt is second to none. I too am hopeful that the American people will understand the difference between truth and this destructive political chicanery. The latter having been prevalent from the right, both in the congress and with the filibuster in the senate. Preventing substantial and vital progress from being achieved during the nations most challenging period since the great depression.
I also await the debate and hope that truth and honesty will finally make it's appearance and that the sensible majority's voice finally be heard. Best regards James
JohnC In fairness and as an Irish exile I felt the need to express my opinion of Mr Ryan on the WAPO blogsite:
ReplyDelete".....Let's face it! This guy Ryan is a seriously disturbed individual. He is an ideologue of that old school that also produces dictators. He is demonstrably psychologically unstable and has already shown his plan for America that will destroy the nations communities and alter the meaning of life, retirement and freedom in America.
A man who openly admits to belief in the mysticisms of both The Catholic church and Ayn Rand is in serious danger of a psychological implosion at some stage, as there is a serious conflict between the two philosophies about the meaning of life! Potentially also a heart beat away from a "red button" in the nuclear box......... Scary thought!
Neither the religion nor the ideology of greed as espoused by Rand, hold the key to the true altruism that Christ and the great prophets of all belief systems preached. This Ryan is a dangerously indoctrinated individual, who will risk the destruction of his own people and their society, simply upon some mystical and monstrous beliefs!
"................We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the record may seem superficial, but it is indelible. You cannot educate a man wholly out of superstitious fears which were implanted in his imagination, no matter how utterly reason may reject them..........."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., US jurist (1841 - 1935)--
What he does not seem to understand is that the world has already tried both and found them wanting, as any practical solution to the needs of humanity, going forward into the future! With Romney we now have a duo that will bring death to everything that is common to that definition of what it once meant to be a free American!
James,
ReplyDeleteI hope to hearing more from Obama on the debt, deficit and entitlements. I hear a lot about taxing the upper income but not enough about reduced spending or fixing entitlements. Increased taxes will not do it and entitlements need to be strengthen fiscally. Obama has flatly rejected Simpson Bowles. Frankly what is his plan??? His plan seems to be to defend the status quo. I don’t think the status quo is good enough. We need to address entitlements.
I completely disagree with the notion that the USA can continue to borrow and increase its deficit and debt. This “pedal to the metal” continuous stimulus mentality and “debt doesn’t matter” attitude is very troubling.
JohnC;;
ReplyDeleteYou have swallowed the GOP talking points 'hook line and sinker' obviously. Obama has not simply "rejected" Simpson Bowles, but economists have, from all sides of the spectrum....
The need for responsible stimulus is the accepted methodology from all of them even the most Obama critical. The ongoing debate about entitlements is nothing more than a smokescreen. They are by all economists admittedly no threat to current fiscal stability.
John I cannot argue with someone who is ideologically intransigent. Your President has made himself perfectly clear, that he expects your congress and your senate to do their jobs. That is because fiscal issues are not his job. He has submitted multi programs and recommendations, in the hope that he could stimulate bipartisanship, and that have thus far met with nothing but bafflegab from the house and filibustering from the Senate. Where the devil have you been over these last 4 years?
News flash Financial Times today.
ReplyDeleteDonor urges Romney to toughen bank rules
".......Paul Singer, the billionaire hedge fund manager who is one of the Republican party’s most influential donors, is pressing Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, to make the case for tougher bank regulation that would go beyond the Dodd-Frank law.
Mr Singer, the chairman of Elliott Associates, recently sent copies of his quarterly investor letter to Romney officials, laying out the need for tighter regulation. The letter, which he distributes to investors and policy makers across the political spectrum, says Dodd-Frank is “ill-conceived” and could cause a financial “black hole”.........."
That Romney is not yet elected seems to have escaped this gentleman's attention However I do agree with his premise!
JohnC ...........Ryan is a devotee of Ayn Rand..... as was Greenspan and as are to some extent, Romney and most of the upper echelon of the current GOP.
ReplyDeleteFrom my archive:
"...............The major issue is really the insistence of these narrow minded ignorant ideologues, that parrot this Rand demagogic nonsense, as somehow a practical economic theory? This is what enrages those of us who spend our lives working as honest merchants, in the benefits of a well balanced capitalist model, within a democratic mixed economy.
These extremists constantly try to push their insane belief in some puritanical thesis, as some 'perfect' replacement for a system, that must always be wary of and always deal with the unpredictable equation. That being the major flaw of any democratic society, but which is in fact the only reality, and that is the "human equation".
Even in the animal kingdom caged animals contentedly grazing, will not at first recognize that the gate has been removed from their cage. But once they do, the stampede grows and like lemmings off of a cliff, they disperse wildly in search of some dubious unfettered freedom, as if it will be a 'nirvannah', when all it really is, is a clear path to the cliffs of destruction!
This is the best comparative parody I can think of for the folly of these Ayn Rand, trickle down believers! It never has worked and it never will work! Their constant efforts to force this idiotic philosophy upon the delicate economic balance of a democracy, now has several modern and glaring examples of it's failure.
Today we are still struggling with the results and these blind fools, that cannot accept the truth, are of course looking around for other easy sources to blame! Deficits and social entitlements are highlighted in their maniacal reasoning as scapegoats, as to why economies collapse? The reality and the truth in the meantime is totally ignored!
H.L. Menchkin defines a demagogue as follows:
"one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue, to men he knows to be idiots."
That is the danger of allowing any persons individual "philosophy", in the case of Ayn Rand, a neurotic reaction to her early exposure to a Stalinist dictatorship, which is really only after all her fevered opinion? To have it fall into the hands of demagogues and politicians that can brand it as some new messianic ideology of truth and purity, is totally beyond reason and yet seemingly acceptable to so many so easily fooled. This is the true failure of the democratic ideal............."
James,
ReplyDelete"responsible stimulus". What a conveniently undefinable term. Is "pedal to the metal" responsible? Is "debt does not matter" responsible. You say that "all economists" do not consider entitlement are not a threat to our "current" fiscal stability. Is this a reason not to discuss them or to ridicule the thought of discussing them? Is it unthinkable to have an economy that does not rely on continual stimulus. Why do you have such disdain about have these discussions?
You are a condescending person with an egotistical slant. I find it amazing that you call others ideologically intransigent when you refuse to consider any philosophy but your own and mock those who disagree with you. Can I be the first to tell you that you are not the God you think you are.
Finally, why are you are overly obsessed with the evil of Ayn Rand!!! You don't agree with her philosophy. You have ranted about many many times in this forum. Anyone that has read this forum (the three of us)know this. Move on my man.
And finally again, your depiction of my comment on the political parties was another shameful sarcastic diatribe. You know that I did not mean to portray all people that support pro labor are Democrat. You also know that when we are talking about political parties the ideology breaks down along the line of the political contributions. Follow the money and you will see which party supports labor and which party supports capital.
Well John;
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that I touched a nerve and you reacted, may I say with somewhat predictable vitriol, given your political posture.
That you don't understand that the debate about capital and labor is the only real practical debate in any economic discourse, is a signal of your inability to understand the really important factors within your own nation.
I am sure convinced now that you will vote for Romney/Ryan and it matters little what anyone has written or said, including myself.
I have tried to lay out positions and opinions before you to stimulate you to seek out the truth but alas It seems I have failed. I am therefore withdrawing and leaving you to have at it and throw your insults at LOU or whoever else may come along. Adios.
"........A nation that not so long ago would have chastised their political leaders severely, for having concert with gamblers and loan sharks, now finds itself in obeisance to that very dynamic? Mr Adelson as one example, makes his money off what are clearly borderline criminal gambling enterprises world wide. Other individuals with equally shady interests are welcomed with open arms, to now influence the control of American democracy via the citizens united ruling?
ReplyDeleteBanking executives under investigation for fraud, both on Wall street and in London, are counted amongst the nearest and dearest friends of the body politic of the United states.
And yet so many would rather choose instead to point accusatory fingers and to attack teachers and firemen and policemen and public servants and their unions as enemies of the Republic? A little small and maybe even narrow minded, one would think?
Seems the quality of mercy is not strained to any great degree or favor for the populace, or any of it's efforts to cement solidarity in the workplace? In this current reality that is the American body politic, mercy is abundantly given it seems, to the real evil that exists in our lives? Curious change of options for such a once great democratic Republic?..
LOU: It seems that this candidate Romney cannot change his spots after all. Truth will out! Note to JOHNC. As with everything, I base my essays (or "diatribes" as you call them) upon these facts from a reliable source. These are not my facts, but they are facts!
ReplyDeleteTodays financial times report:
FT investigation: Romney link to union suppression ruling
A company controlled by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital ran an unlawful campaign to suppress a potential union in the 1980s, according to US court and federal agency documents.
Key Airlines, an early investment for the private equity firm founded by a young Mitt Romney and two associates, broke the law by attempting to coerce and then dismiss two pilots who tried to organise a union. Two months after a union vote failed, Bain agreed to sell Key Airlines at a large profit.
http://link.ft.com/r/8P1R88/8Z6PGN/6GACJ/62JHQF/ORQJ3E/T3/h?
JohnC: responsible stimulus I have defined for you several times on this and other streams. How often must I repeat my points?
ReplyDeleteFrom above:........ They are pushing for Proper Stimulus implementation........... " This again becomes a function of the political will to install adequate regulatory protocols to eliminate the excessive influences of the capital sector over labor......." I thought this defined it but you chose to ignore it obviously?
JohnC: A basic economics 101 lesson.
ReplyDeleteAll economies and nations depend upon their ability to afford debt. (Sovereignty protocols).
As I have said so many times, the U.S is still the richest economy on the planet! There is no current threat to your nation from debt, unless of course revenues continue to be artificially stunted! Which is by the way what George W Bush did, by spending excessively, while slashing revenues?
Economists are clear on these basic issues JohnC. It does no good to debate with neophytes such as Ryan upon basics. Neither do I wish to be insulted for 45 years of experience by someone who apparently refuses to see what is so clearly laid before him to paraphrase good old Tolstoy! I urge you to find another target for your venom!
I never called Ayn Rand evil? Neurotic and delusional yes but never evil. Nor am I obsessed by her? Her texts were works of fiction and with that I have no issue nor ever had!
ReplyDeleteI do however and am on record as calling the usage of her fictional text by anyone, as a philosophy for the economic modeling of any Democratic society...... as an evil! I believe this has been borne out just recently? Or again are you positing trickle down objectivism as a success?
Why should I bother? Good bye!
What the simpletons on the right side of the social equation do not get, is that everybody understands that free enterprise is a great system! They seem to feel threatened by the simplest logic shown by the historical evidence, that so many are suffering while so few are prospering!
ReplyDeleteIt's not that life's winners aren't deserving of what they have achieved. Most of them are accomplished and do work hard. Almost everyone of every political stripe agrees with this. The trouble is that the gap between the winners and the losers is getting exponentially wider with each passing generation.
This clearly indicates that a system based solely upon meritocracy is flawed in the extreme. Quite clearly it leaves too many people behind, who are also hard working and capable of great accomplishment if only they were given an 'equality' of opportunity?
The makeup of our societies has also changed and the meritocracy has not taken these dramatic changes into consideration? It merely rewards a set of the population that is prepared, purely by birthright or by excessive skill or simple good luck, to become enriched, while the vast majority of the "others" struggle to simply survive as they watch their lot in life shrink immeasurably. This regardless of how hard they work to escape the drudgery of poverty. It is an historic empirical drama now repeating itself in America.
The question in this election becomes quite simply what kind of a society do you want? One controlled by a minority interest with maximum capital power, or a true democracy, where all share in the fruits of the labor of the communities and the social strata?
I love that quote from Lincoln regarding capital and labor. You don't hear it mentioned amongst the various political platitudes coming from the extreme right. And that's because, the extreme right's mantra of lower taxes for "everyone" is really a smoke screen for very wealthy corporate and individual's interests, hidden under the guise of God and patriotism.
ReplyDeleteThe extreme right talks about hard work as if anyone not agreeing with them is some kind of lazy lout who wants to squirt by with doing as little as possible while collecting welfare and getting a free pass to college. That is nonsense.
But at the same time, they are the ones using money to make money in and of itself, and at least as often as not (and probably more given the statistics I've seen) it destroys jobs in the process rather than creates them, which is anathema to Lincoln and the opposite of what they claim.
One of the techniques for the wealthy to increase their wealth is from the use of tax schemes that either primarily or sometimes exclusively benefit them. Not much job creation is involved in that, other than the very well paid "make work" for tax attorneys - who are in some cases involved in the drafting of the legislation in the first place. They are the ones who create the trusts that keep generations of their family members wealthy - without having to "get a real job". So much for hard work.
. . . . Yes, originally, someone did something, perhaps worked really hard and/or was very clever and became successful. Good for them. But later generations of the heirs simply inherit that wealth and keep perpetuating it via investment and tax laws schemes that have little to do with the creation of jobs.
Although the election is over, here is an article that is good reading and still very relevant to the general economic discussion.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html
In addition, I also thought this other article was very interesting, a comparison of the board game "Monopoly" with the actual economics of it.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/danger-ahead-oligarchs-dont-understand-economic-collapse-happens-when-they-get-all-money
Here is another relevant quote from President Lincoln that bears repeating:
ReplyDelete"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
John, I am belatedly addressing something your wrote back in August: "The question that I always ask myself is how do we structure a society to address people that will not or cannot educate themselves or that will not or cannot institute even a modest savings program while giving people an incentive to sacrifice and achieve these goals. I know there are a lot of hard working people that cannot do these things but I also think that we have become too willing to accept and make excuses for people that do not work as hard as they should.
ReplyDeleteWolff also lays a lot of the cause of the crisis on financial institutions instead of corporations that produce product. I think this is the correct emphasis. I think that way too much energy is spent on demonizing all corporations without drilling down to the really bad actors.
And to address another post of yours why don't focus on the insane concept of taking hedge fund and private equity profit at 15%. This is so wrong yet we focus on increasing taxes on corporations. Fix the carried interest tax loophole then lets see what we should do about corporations."
There is much that I agree with in your statements there.
The issue of the segment of the population that is extremely under educated (in many ways) is a specific problem that needs to be addressed. The mistake that the conservatives make is to suggest that the problematic ethos that is seemingly intractable in this group of people applies to a broad swath of the progressive side. That is baloney. The conservatives will never make friends with anyone (other than their radical Bible-thumping compatriots) by insulting so many relatively intelligent people.
Going after the hedge-fund tax loophole was/is a no-brainer. Again, the conservatives missed an opportunity to reach at least some moderate progressives by being as totally anti-tax pro-all-corporations minded as some of the more liberal progressives you correctly point out who are totally anti-corporate. Where is the reasonable middle ground?
If I may attempt to answer my own question: the middle ground is not addressed because the forces behind (bank rolling) the conservative agenda are disingenuous; they are not so much religious zealots as they are only interested in manipulating government regs and tax laws in their favor; but they appeal to (and use) the zealots in order to have the political power to get their economic agenda passed.
Lou:
ReplyDeleteNice to see your return: I have one suggestion for a good read and I think an essential for any American who really wants to know:
"Who Stole The American Dream" By Hedrick Smith.
Another thing on my own wish list is, that having witnessed once again the ugly beauty that is the American democratic process at work. That the extremists from the right, will now become sufficiently marginalized, to permit a rebirth of a true American conservatism.
This is an essential to offset any potential for any injurious or excessive liberalism. The returntot the moderate paths of common sense, that truly makes America an "exceptional" nation once again!
Lou:
ReplyDeleteRelated to your comment somewhat in defense of corporations. I would point out that I too am not so senseless, as to not understand that the corporate sector must have a healthy environment within which to function.
My issues have always been that that is exactly what they have not been doing in the United states mainly, and as a consequence only Financial services entities have grown to achieve the top 50 status, once the reserve of great labor intensive manufacturing giants....
I just posted this comment to the WAPO blog today regarding the meeting scheduled in Washington........ In summation of my overall opinion of what has been the historical malfeasance by what I and Jack Bogle have referred to in the past as, "these Mediocre men in business suits"......
"....I am always constantly astounded at how much money and time, so called busy executives are willing to expend, to influence the decisions of the peoples parliament? The latest election highlighted this penchant to spend, spend, spend, to buy political influence, as does this latest confluence of supposedly high minded CEO's and chairmen of the top earners of the Nation?
Pardon me if I remain skeptical as to what they claim are their 'altruistic motivations' in this latest round of power peddling in Washington?
If I were a shareholder in any of these ventures and or a member of the American middle class, I would be more impressed, if I witnessed them paying closer attention to empowering the nations growth, by managing and growing their companies better and investing their "ill gotten gains" into job creation efforts on the home front, rather than peddling influence in the halls of government! ...... Enough already!
For the record:
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. federal government ran the largest December surplus on record (announced yesterday (January 13th 2014) at $53.2 billion which included a $40 billion payment from Fannie & Freddie Mae). On a three month basis, the deficit is 40.8% lower than a year ago............... (Yardeni Research). This does not include most of the substantial funds recaptured from Wall street sourced fines by the justice department.
Let's see how the GOP in America will now justify their constant inanities about the deficit, Fiscal cliffs and their demand for ever more socially destructive austerity, come the looming debates on the economy! The American economy once again has shown that it can take a major hit and still recover. The overall recovery however, sadly, is based more upon healthier global dynamics than the domestic scene, where generational unemployment continues to be a major challenge.
This is a lagging effect of poor political policies of the past, and the ignoring of Global labor realities, as well as an imbalanced and ineffective tax regimen. The GOP administrations of the recent past, when in power, have subsequently been shown quite clearly, to have little ability to govern such a massively successful mixed economy, with any degree of acuity or forethought for the future. Their continuing jingoistic approach to economics is frighteningly naive and reflects their overall infantile and socially destructive political idiocy.
Lou,
ReplyDelete"............the silence is deafening......... are all the right wing extremists lying down and sucking their thumbs like children, as they contemplate how wrong their attitudes and ideas have been.......
?
James, nice to hear from you. I have not been active on this site for quite a while - obviously, but perhaps it's time to rekindle some conversations. Looking back at some of the comments written here by you, John, and even myself, I forget that we come up with some impressive conversations and good information. :)
ReplyDeleteTo address your recent comment, I unfortunately have to disagree with you: they are not lying down and being silent. I am exposed to right wing media radio as well as Fox News on a regular basis, and I take those opportunities to listen from a "keep your enemies closer" point of view. They never quit, because they are being sponsored and propped up by very wealthy parties, whose continued increase in wealth is reliant on having a mis-informed electorate. They admit nothing about being wrong. They are as adamantly anti Obama, anti-progressive, and pro right wing as they ever have been. It's almost like they are living in a perverse alternate reality; but it's a perception that they push on their listeners and viewers 24/7/365. Perhaps you are not exposed to this kind of propaganda as much up in the great white north. If that's the case, it's probably because your electorate is generally more politically astute and aware than the average American.
These conservative right wingers do not admit they are wrong, and in fact, continue to coerce their followers/sheep into believing that Obama is the worst President in American history and is trying to undermine the United States. According to them, everything Obama and his administration does is wrong and a disgrace. They use the same tactics of misdirection that they have been using for the past10 years.
I'm afraid if the progressive people who came together to re-elect Obama and keep the Senate in Democratic hands do not continue to stay vigilant, they will find themselves with a Republican Senate, as well as the Republican House, by next year.
I should further add, that I hope you noticed the recent SCOTUS decision to further deregulate campaign finance regulations by allowing a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign.
ReplyDeleteCitizens United was a horrible decision. This latest twisting of the knife into the gut of democracy will further cement the wealthy's stranglehold on political "free speech".
I have to copy/paste part of Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion here, and then I'll link to the article.
"Today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve. "
Breyer continues:
"What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption.Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary “chain of communication” between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point. That is one reason why the Court has stressed the constitutional importance of Congress’ concern that a few large donations not drown out the voices of the many. That is also why the Court has used the phrase“subversion of the political process” to describe circumstances in which “elected officials are influenced to act contrary to their obligations of office by the prospect of financial gain to themselves or infusions of money into their campaigns.”
The “appearance of corruption” can make matters worse. It can lead the public to believe that its efforts to communicate with its representatives or to help sway public opinion have little purpose. And a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether. "
http://www.alternet.org/investigations/arm-yourself-read-breyers-dissent-mccutcheon-v-fec?akid=11672.259232.QNofqU&rd=1&src=newsletter978206&t=4