we need to pull the plug on capitalism

[Shai Gar]

capitalism died in 1929 (stock crash and many many people became beggers) and then it was revived with WW2 but pretty soon after that it came back to what life was like in 29 - 39 until the government introduced the welfare bill.

consider this, the only reason that the people of america have not openly rebelled violently is because they are slightly holding on due to the welfare, i consider this time in americas history to be the equivilant to 2 things, an elderly man lying in a hospital bed on life support. and france just before the revolution with everyone starving and the army supressing them.

the only difference to the last one is that the americans give a token sum to appease the masses, though it doesnt appease all. and the americans dont use the army to supress the people, they use the FBI, ATF and DHS. waco or ruby ridge anyone? the most healthy thing for the USA at the moment would be a revolution.

just pull the plug on capitalism, start again i have an idea that can replace it, i am working on this treatise on Meritocratism. when it is done you guys will be among the first to read it, after that i shall find a publisher and sell it in the USA

[mgb]

I've had the idea that a Guild based Meritocracy might be a great idea.

[Claverhouse]

I agree, but the US will implode in other directions ( splitting up, by region and other factors ) long before there's a likelihood of purposeful revolution.

I'll buy your book eventually, but it might have to be self-published from Guantamino Bay.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

yeah, there is that strong possibility, but i will kill many many of my government officials if that happens

one of the australian guys in cuba got released, but not david hicks damnit.

why guild based? i was thinking a lot of communism mixed with meritocracy and private land ownership and public debate and dissidency

[booyalab]

Whenever I see a thread in this(particular) forum proposing some course of action, I just have to laugh.

hahahahahahaha!
suckers

[Shai Gar]

lick my nads

[Falling Star]

just pull the plug on capitalism, start again i have an idea that can replace it, i am working on this treatise on Meritocratism. when it is done you guys will be among the first to read it, after that i shall find a publisher and sell it in the USA

Just another societal hierarchy where those at the top of the meritocracy will grow fat on the labor of the powerless people at the bottom who will be forced to endure all the machinations and petty politics of the INTPs at the top of the food chain. I don't think I'll support this as I'm not an INTP. I think it would be best to just burn down society and then let nature sort 'em out like in that movie Roadwarrior. :devil:

[Shai Gar]

no, because in a meritocracy you are not allowed to leave anything to your children, all your worldly goods get sold and go to the community.

your children only get the knowledge you have taught them, and the efforts they use to bring cash to them is rewarded in a non fiscal sense.

but i do like your idea. Shocking Shai, cousin to Mad Max

[Hypnos]

capitalism died in 1929 (stock crash and many many people became beggers) and then it was revived with WW2 but pretty soon after that it came back to what life was like in 29 - 39 until the government introduced the welfare bill.
Looks like you've bought the liberal/Keynesian macroeconomic story hook, line and sinker.

* Things started going downhill when Wilson created the Federal Reserve system in an attempt to eliminate the small, natural stock market corrections and banking failures in the US.

* The crash occurred because the nitwits at the Federal Reserve did not print enough money to meet the demand for cash money. Rapid deflation occurred, investment and capital flow ground to a halt. Even liberal economists agree on this point.

* Gov't spending went through the roof, often at deficit. Consequently, attempts to smooth out the economy have actually backfired, resulting in large oscillations, regular oscillations like the stagflation of the late 70s and early 90s.

* Nixon put the final nail in the coffin when he severed any link between the Federal Reserve and reserve gold. He did this fund the Vietnam War by creating "fake" value with printed (i.e. "fiat") money.

[Shai Gar]

dont be a moron, and what liberal/keynsian story you wanker, i just took a look at the history of capitalism, the US unemployment rates throughout the years and compared it to the life of communism. capitalism was an abysmal failure. dont even try to make it look otherwise unless you can back up your own statement without supporting mine.

wanker

[Aryan]

No way!
We dont need to... pull the plug ! :)
We are INTPs, we dont start revolutions
We just sit and watch http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/whistling.gif and give sparks if needed :devil:

[Dman]

Your problem is that the only sources of information you seem to have on your theory are those of extreme crises and the vocal minority. In order to have a revolution, you need to at least have a significant, even if small, number of people who are disillusioned enough to engage. In the US, I can assure you there are plenty of people who are very content with their lives and for the most part the way things are. Think of it like work – everyone complains and wants more pay / less work, but until things truly get bad, no one will quit and everyone will continue to play the game. Virtually everyone in the US knows someone close who is very successful, and knows that it is possible for almost everyone to achieve it themselves. This is what drives people. When most people feel they have the opportunity to have a successful life, why would they want to throw it all away in a revolution? A revolution for what?

It’s interesting that you have such strong feelings of an impending revolution when you do not even live here.

As for unemployment, it’s funny, but people tend to not look for work very hard when they’re getting paid for being unemployed! Thus, the unemployment figures stay close to where they are! However, if you dig a little deeper, you might discover that when people’s unemployment pay runs out, through some * miracle * they find work again!

[Hypnos]

Shai Gar,

As if unemployment is the only metric of economic success. Clearly, the essential story of the 20th century has been the failure of most-planned economics in the face of mostly-free ones.

This is basic economics. Any textbook will give you the straight story on the history and success/failures/opinions of monetary policy and markets. Read one.

If you want an articulate rendition of your position, read this:

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/LiberalFAQ.htm

[booyalab]

lick my nads

Posts that propose a course of action dont make me any less amused, fyi

[booyalab]

Your problem is that the only sources of information you seem to have on your theory are those of extreme crises and the vocal minority. In order to have a revolution, you need to at least have a significant, even if small, number of people who are disillusioned enough to engage. In the US, I can assure you there are plenty of people who are very content with their lives and for the most part the way things are. Think of it like work – everyone complains and wants more pay / less work, but until things truly get bad, no one will quit and everyone will continue to play the game. Virtually everyone in the US knows someone close who is very successful, and knows that it is possible for almost everyone to achieve it themselves. This is what drives people. When most people feel they have the opportunity to have a successful life, why would they want to throw it all away in a revolution? A revolution for what?

It’s interesting that you have such strong feelings of an impending revolution when you do not even live here.

As for unemployment, it’s funny, but people tend to not look for work very hard when they’re getting paid for being unemployed! Thus, the unemployment figures stay close to where they are! However, if you dig a little deeper, you might discover that when people’s unemployment pay runs out, through some * miracle * they find work again!

agreed.....not to mention that, even if a meritocracy would be better, it takes so long for things to return to halfway decent after a revolution...and the more content people were before the revolution, the less willing they will be to adapt to the new way of doing things. So it would probably take decades, if not centuries, for things to turn out as good as they are for us now. Plus, a lot of other countries and billions of people have something to lose by America turning into a new form of government and it would could possibly be the most difficult revolution ever attempted in the history of the world.

[mgb]

yeah, there is that strong possibility, but i will kill many many of my government officials if that happens

one of the australian guys in cuba got released, but not david hicks damnit.

why guild based? i was thinking a lot of communism mixed with meritocracy and private land ownership and public debate and dissidency

I thought of Guild based because it would give every group a say and not put any one type of job in charge. For example. There are a lot of lawyers in politics. Rather I see some sort of governing council made up of people that have worked in their particular field for a long time and can lend their experiences to the community or country as a whole.

[Lee]

To fight capitalism is to fight human nature and strangely enough human nature also involves fighting capitalism.....the first one always wins though, the latter can only sustain itself when part of a minority. That is all I am saying on the matter.

[Shai Gar]

good idea bradsch. it is amusing to see all these americans defending democracy when in the long run it is they who suffer the most from it

[MjrMarshmellows]

Quote #1:
"we need to pull the plug on capitalism "
Ok.. this is the title of the thread, reasonable I guess...

Continuing...
Quote #2:
"just pull the plug on capitalism, start again i have an idea that can replace it, i am working on this treatise on Meritocratism. when it is done you guys will be among the first to read it, after that i shall find a publisher and sell it in the USA"
Wait... didn't you just say we should PULL the plug on capitalism... and you will do this by SELLING A BOOK!?! Wouldn't SELLING a book be a capitalist venture, or is this one of those situations where you are going to profit from capitalism while bashing it the whole time... Hypocrite!

Quote # 3:
"good idea bradsch. it is amusing to see all these americans defending democracy when in the long run it is they who suffer the most from it"
Wait.. DEMOCRACY... WHAT THE HELL IS THIS THREAD ABOUT!?! do you mean democracy or capitalism, which one? or both? what do hell are you saying.. do you even know?

[C.J.Woolf]

To fight capitalism is to fight human nature...
You beat me to it. All the utopian systems break down because their inventors pretend that humans are "better" than they really are; they deny some aspect of human nature. Humans are not programmed to get along in large groups. Humans do not naturally share outside the tribe, and a tribe is typically less than 1000 people. Successful systems are realistic; they harness some of our less pleasant impulses to produce social goods.

Capitalism produces social goods as long as it is regulated. That was the lesson of the Gilded Age, its collapse, and the New Deal. The dogmatic capitalists who insist on a "free market" are as unrealistic as the utopians.

We'll never have a true meritocracy unless people stopped raising their own children (the stuff of science fiction) because of the basic human impulse to give one's children every advantage one can get by fair means or foul. People try to place their idiot children as high in the hierarchy as they are, and voila! the whole system is perverted in only one generation.

[Hypnos]

Capitalism produces social goods as long as it is regulated. That was the lesson of the Gilded Age, its collapse, and the New Deal. The dogmatic capitalists who insist on a "free market" are as unrealistic as the utopians.
It's debatable whether or not the Gilded Age was due to a market unable to regulate itself, or that the New Deal has, in the long run, been worth the opportunity cost.

However, there are two greater dangers here: that any bureaucracy instituted to proscribe the market is an opportunity for the perversion you describe, and that bureaucracies are seen as solutions to problems caused by lack of business accountability and personal responsibility. In other words, there are market failures, but coercive means of correcting them are far more inefficient and stultifying in the long run.

In the 20th century, we saw the rise and fall of planned economies. I wonder if in the 21st century, we will see the rise and fall of pandering and predatory regulation.

This is all apart from the problem of defining morality and determining what is a merit good.

[crule81]

Shai Gar,

Why are you always so concerned with what is happening in the US? Please try to inflict your philosophies on Australia first.

[booyalab]

excerpt from Shai Gar's "meritocracy" manifesto:

"..and then the magic elephants will descend from Pluto, bringing with them nuclear powered toaster bombs. The bombs shall be placed, by an SJ minion, in every McDonalds, beneath the table closest to each plastic ronald mcdonald statue (a symbol of the capitalistic opiate) Then, when the entire country is in smoldering ruins, each NT will emerge from the darkest depths of their basement computer rooms, shielding their eyes from the glorious light of illustrious freedom. Then they will go back to their computers and have a forum party."

[mgb]

You beat me to it. All the utopian systems break down because their inventors pretend that humans are "better" than they really are; they deny some aspect of human nature. Humans are not programmed to get along in large groups. Humans do not naturally share outside the tribe, and a tribe is typically less than 1000 people. Successful systems are realistic; they harness some of our less pleasant impulses to produce social goods.

Capitalism produces social goods as long as it is regulated. That was the lesson of the Gilded Age, its collapse, and the New Deal. The dogmatic capitalists who insist on a "free market" are as unrealistic as the utopians.

We'll never have a true meritocracy unless people stopped raising their own children (the stuff of science fiction) because of the basic human impulse to give one's children every advantage one can get by fair means or foul. People try to place their idiot children as high in the hierarchy as they are, and voila! the whole system is perverted in only one generation.


I would say that guilds were phased out by the industrial revolution because of their inability to adapt to the new style of economics and at the same time protect their membership from corporate abuse.

New style guilds based on meritocracy might prove to be more adaptable.

[Geoff]

Guilds still exist in their medieval format, only as a mechanism for expensive lunches pretty much. In the UK the Royal Charter system still effectively creates guilds. So, I am a Chartered Tax Adviser, but you could easily enough redescribe it as me being a member of the Royal Guild of Tax Advisers. It is quite fun to go to the London guildhall and hear all the history and the gradual development of the guilds.

-Geoff

[Claverhouse]

Nice Art Collection too. And there's a sweet little museum devoted to clocks/watches...

Shows that even pointless organisations have virtues.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

i focus on american politics because we live in an american empire, i am a firm believer in democracy and to be one of those we need to defend liberty and all that crap. plus i have friends in the US who i fear for

[MjrMarshmellows]

Shai Gar, I fear you are a complete idiot.

[Lee]

I second that.

note: I don not think you are an idiot, but sometimes you come out with some stuff :)

[C.J.Woolf]

It's debatable whether or not the Gilded Age was due to a market unable to regulate itself, or that the New Deal has, in the long run, been worth the opportunity cost.
A Monty Python character, commenting on an apartment block that was built by the Amazing Mystico using hypnosis: "The building is perfectly safe, provided the residents believe in it." That describes the modern market economy pretty well. The SEC was meant to ensure that investors don't buy worthless paper, the FDIC was meant to prevent a future run on the banks, etc. An efficient market requires trust, and the 1929 crash destroyed most of it. The New Deal rebuilt trust.

As for the New Deal's opportunity cost, opportunity cost to whom? The "malefactors of great wealth" (in FDR's words) who made it necessary? And is there really any way to determine how much it was?


However, there are two greater dangers here: that any bureaucracy instituted to proscribe the market is an opportunity for the perversion you describe, and that bureaucracies are seen as solutions to problems caused by lack of business accountability and personal responsibility. In other words, there are market failures, but coercive means of correcting them are far more inefficient and stultifying in the long run.
Question: How long do you wait for the market to correct itself, and how much social damage do you accept before you take political action? One reason markets are not self-regulating is that doing the right thing puts a company at a competitive disadvantage, if doing the right thing has a cost. Example: pollution. If an industry has lower costs if it pollutes, then any company that pollutes puts pressure on its competitors to pollute also. It's the "race to the bottom" effect. Only outside regulation will stop it.

You fear government power. I fear government power and corporate power. In the U.S., government power is checked and balanced by the three branches, and the entire government is ultimately accountable to the voters. Corporate power is checked and balanced by political power. That's the only way corporations can be held accountable to those they affect but can't affect them economically.

As for your fears of regulation run amok, I look at history. The New Deal did not stop the United States from becoming, and remaining, the richest nation in the world. I don't see the stultification. Also, Americans have a bias toward leaving the market alone and intervening only when there is an obvious problem the market cannot correct. This ain't France or Germany.


In the 20th century, we saw the rise and fall of planned economies. I wonder if in the 21st century, we will see the rise and fall of pandering and predatory regulation.
Such as? That is a sincere question.

The only pandering and predatory regulation I see on the horizon is pro-corporation: "tort reform", which would restrict people from seeking compensation for the misdeeds or negligence of corporations. The corps speak the truth when they say that lawsuits are inefficient, but they're attacking the wrong problem. It's better to prevent the actions that made the lawsuits necessary in the first place, and that requires... better regulation of corporate conduct.

[C.J.Woolf]

Shai Gar, I fear you are a complete idiot.
Oh, I dunno. During the Cold War Americans paid a lot of attention to Soviet politics, considering they could start World War III and all.

[Serotonin]

excerpt from Shai Gar's "meritocracy" manifesto:

"..and then the magic elephants will descend from Pluto, bringing with them nuclear powered toaster bombs. The bombs shall be placed, by an SJ minion, in every McDonalds, beneath the table closest to each plastic ronald mcdonald statue (a symbol of the capitalistic opiate) Then, when the entire country is in smoldering ruins, each NT will emerge from the darkest depths of their basement computer rooms, shielding their eyes from the glorious light of illustrious freedom. Then they will go back to their computers and have a forum party."

:lol:

And I should be concerned, I'm his compatriate. Oi Shai baby, can I run the Ministry of Truth?

[Hypnos]

A Monty Python character, commenting on an apartment block that was built by the Amazing Mystico using hypnosis: "The building is perfectly safe, provided the residents believe in it." That describes the modern market economy pretty well. The SEC was meant to ensure that investors don't buy worthless paper, the FDIC was meant to prevent a future run on the banks, etc. An efficient market requires trust, and the 1929 crash destroyed most of it.
You didn't read my other post. The US had a history of small bank runs since the beginning -- that's part of the market. US grew through this: westward expansion and industrial revoluton.

Woodrow Wilson was not happy with this. For some reason, politically, a premium was placed on currency stability even though the economy was prosperous. Furthermore, the gov't could not set national policy and fund wars easily, having to rely on bonds. So he created the Federal Reserve.

The boom of 1920s and the crash in 1929 were in large part due to the idiocy of the Federal Reserve board. The economy overheated due to artificially low interest rates; when people realized that their hard assets were overvalued, they tried to redeem them for cash. However, suddenly, the Federal Reserve recognized its earlier error, and compounded it by not printing more cash to meet demand. When you have fiat money, you want its "velocity" (rate of transaction) to be constant, and for the supply to grow on the long term with GDP.

The FDIC is an interesting beast. After the creation of the Federal Reserve, banks were requred to ship only federal notes (i.e, dollars).
So now they are subject to the whims of the Fed (hence "bankers hours"), and just run infrastructure. FDIC's role now is just to insure depositors against malfeasance. The market has worked around this, with people wanting a real return on their capital going to bonds and uninsured money market accounts.

These days, we have predicable, cyclic growth/recession cycles. Depending on which economists you believe these are either less or more extreme than what a gold-backed free market would have achieved.


The New Deal rebuilt trust.

As for the New Deal's opportunity cost, opportunity cost to whom? The "malefactors of great wealth" (in FDR's words) who made it necessary? And is there really any way to determine how much it was?
By "trust," you must mean predictable wage pricing. Keynes, and FDR advisor, suggested that gov't spending should increase to maintain stable currency when labor demand goes down in the market. This means deficit spending and a continuing tradition of rising national debt and gov't bloat.

The rationale behind this is that stable wage pricing prevents "friction" due to the uncertainty in the cost of goods and services. Certainly, inflation is a killer politically because people tie their self-worth to the amount of dollars written on their paychecks.


Question: How long do you wait for the market to correct itself, and how much social damage do you accept before you take political action? One reason markets are not self-regulating is that doing the right thing puts a company at a competitive disadvantage, if doing the right thing has a cost. Example: pollution. If an industry has lower costs if it pollutes, then any company that pollutes puts pressure on its competitors to pollute also. It's the "race to the bottom" effect. Only outside regulation will stop it.
You're mixing two concepts here: the "relaxtion" time in markets due to limits in communication speed, and externalities (benefits to one/costs to everyone). Certainly, the gov't has as role in preventing abuse of resources which can't be commoditized, like air. Ironically, some of the most heavily regulated economies of the world have the worst pollution, e.g. India.


You fear government power. I fear government power and corporate power. In the U.S., government power is checked and balanced by the three branches, and the entire government is ultimately accountable to the voters. Corporate power is checked and balanced by political power. That's the only way corporations can be held accountable to those they affect but can't affect them economically.
Voters, in some sense, are just consumers of gov't. With a corporation, there are generally competitors. Try leaving your gov't -- you can still have up to 10 years of tax liability after you renounce your US citizenship. You are relying on political power to check corporate power, when in fact the natural result is for them to get into bed with each other.


As for your fears of regulation run amok, I look at history. The New Deal did not stop the United States from becoming, and remaining, the richest nation in the world. I don't see the stultification. Also, Americans have a bias toward leaving the market alone and intervening only when there is an obvious problem the market cannot correct. This ain't France or Germany.
With US military might, gov't bonds are currency valuation remain high, despite a national debt which is a significant fraction of GDP. As for nationalization/collectivization, heavily regulated airlines and banking and organized labor dominated the economy from 1950 to 1980. Failures in Vietnam and the "stagflation" of the late 70's began to change minds back towards laissez faire.

There are other dangers now: taxation on "junk food," unabated gov't spending in pork and insolvent entitlements, local, state and federal regulation on small businesses and consumer goods, etc.


The only pandering and predatory regulation I see on the horizon is pro-corporation: "tort reform", which would restrict people from seeking compensation for the misdeeds or negligence of corporations. The corps speak the truth when they say that lawsuits are inefficient, but they're attacking the wrong problem. It's better to prevent the actions that made the lawsuits necessary in the first place, and that requires... better regulation of corporate conduct.
At least in a tort you can get straight money damages; with regulation, you have a purview for pandering, corruption and generally inefficient foisting of social agendas.

Real tort reform would involve the loser paying the winner's legal fees (up to solvency), which would prevent well-heeled corps. like McDonalds from burying protestors.

[MacGuffin]

Oh please. Before the U.S. ever gets to a revolution or collapse we are far more likely to invade countries like Canada and Australia and strip them of natural resources and make everyone there slaves.

You should fear that far more cause there is no way you could stop us.

[Ascending]

You should fear that far more cause there is no way you could stop us. The force is strong with this one?

[Claverhouse]

Oh please. Before the U.S. ever gets to a revolution or collapse we are far more likely to invade countries like Canada and Australia and strip them of natural resources and make everyone there slaves.

You should fear that far more cause there is no way you could stop us.

Half a dozen nuclear devices judiciously planted about the US land mass, each 10,000 times the power expended in Hiroshima, might help.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jimkopelli]

Thus resulting in the world ending up looking like an apple core like in cartoons.


Isn't capitalism a form (though currently warped) of meritocracy? Those with the skills and know-how to make money... make money and get ahead, while those who don't have the inclination for that... don't. Capitalism just doesn't reward people for having other skills unless they can find a way to make money off of them.

[jgreensp]

Hypnos,

Do you work in the financial sector? You seem to really know your stuff, most people are not aware that the great depression was as bad as it was because the Fed messed up. People like to blame capitalism but this is a narrow and uneducated opinion in my view. You should read(if you have not already) Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, there is a whole chapter about the Fed's failure during the great depression. Not to mention, the book is phenomenal and Friedman is a genius.

[C.J.Woolf]

A shorter reply this time (heh).


The boom of 1920s and the crash in 1929 were in large part due to the idiocy of the Federal Reserve board.
I can see that poor regulation can have bad outcomes. And good regulation can have good outcomes. Paul Krugman praised Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton for being the first Fed chairman and president who actually coordinated monetary and fiscal policy, and I'd say the 90s turned out pretty well.


You're mixing two concepts here: the "relaxtion" time in markets due to limits in communication speed, and externalities (benefits to one/costs to everyone). Certainly, the gov't has as role in preventing abuse of resources which can't be commoditized, like air. Ironically, some of the most heavily regulated economies of the world have the worst pollution, e.g. India.
I see from your web page that your parents are from India. I've heard horror stories about the Indian government bureaucracy. Did that have a major influence on your views? I think the U.S. government bureaucracy is not nearly that bad.


Voters, in some sense, are just consumers of gov't. With a corporation, there are generally competitors. Try leaving your gov't -- you can still have up to 10 years of tax liability after you renounce your US citizenship.
Whoa. I do not like the idea of seeing government as just another business. Call me irrational, but I just don't. It strikes me as another example of capitalist dogma.


You are relying on political power to check corporate power, when in fact the natural result is for them to get into bed with each other.
Question 1: Can anything else check corporate power? I'm trying the make the best of what we've got.

Question 2: Are you cynical? Have you given up? Yes, the two tend to get into bed with each other unless we the people elect politicians who want to serve the public interest! If such people have ceased to exist then we're doomed, and it hardly matters whether we're screwed by the corporations or screwed by the government or screwed by both.


With US military might, gov't bonds are currency valuation remain high, despite a national debt which is a significant fraction of GDP.
I don't know how long that can last.


At least in a tort you can get straight money damages; with regulation, you have a purview for pandering, corruption and generally inefficient foisting of social agendas.
One trouble with torts is that they're spotty as a means of compensation. It seems either a few people get big awards, or everybody gets a paltry award in a class action.


Real tort reform would involve the loser paying the winner's legal fees (up to solvency), which would prevent well-heeled corps. like McDonalds from burying protestors.
Hear, hear.

Hypnos, you have an excellent command of the facts, better than mine. One thing that fascinates me about politics is how intelligent, informed people can know the same facts and take divergent political positions. I could go on and on about this but I'll leave it alone for now.

For me it's empirical. We have the historical record of the relatively unregulated capitalism of the Gilded Age and the more regulated capitalism of the New Deal and later. Which would you rather live in -- as an ordinary worker, not a rich man? I prefer today -- shorter work hours, safer working condtions, safer products, and a cleaner environment.

[Hypnos]

jgreensp,

I'm working on my physics PhD, but I very well might end up in the financial sector! Theoretical physics is a tough gig ...

*********

CJWoolf,

* On fiscal and monetary policy: Of course if they should be coordinated! If they are, there is not much to object to in fiat money. Well, apart from the possibility that fiscal and monetary policy won't be coordinated, screwing people who have purschased the currency.

* India v. US: The US is pretty good -- it's still among the most economically free countries in the world (top 5 or so), which is decent for a country with 280 million people and 25% of the world's output. India has tanked since the 60s, and the collectivist eastern India is lagging behind the south in private investment with the new tech boom. India is classic case of the sippery slope in economic intervention -- political expedience, once obtained, is never relinquished.

* Corporate power:

1) If voters can check gov't power, consumers can check corporate power. The question is, must the capitalist machine be lubed from time to time with the blood of consumers and CEOs? I think it already is -- that's a correction. Does it require _actual_ blood spilling or gov't coercion? The threshold is pretty, IMHO.

2) As an informed consumer, I am much more cynical about coercion (i.e. gov't) than asymmetry of information (i.e., evil sneaky corporations). Maybe I am overestimating my fellow consumers :blush:

* We seem to be in agreement on the unsustainability of continuing deficit spending and the efficacy of "winner take all" legal battles.

* Cleaner environment and safe products (each with some damage calculus, not "just because") are cool. But I'd like to choose how much I'm paid and how long I work. I have choice to the extent that I am useful to others, which has philosophical implications (existence of an objective good, etc.).

* As for empirical proof, standard of living is positively correlated with GDP, and GDP growth is positively correlated with economic freedom:

http://freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch2.pdf

(see Exhibit 2.1)

Now, places like Norway and Switzerland will say that life is better if you throw in just a little bit of compassion with your market model, in the form of a safety net and some other benefits. It's worthy of debate, but first one must define "better" -- I think the UN's Human Development Index is full of shit.

[Dman]

People like to blame capitalism but this is a narrow and uneducated opinion in my view.

That's because the depression was not CAUSED by the Fed messing up, just aggravated by it. Research what caused it in the first place.

[Hypnos]

That's because the depression was not CAUSED by the Fed messing up, just aggravated by it. Research what caused it in the first place.
In your opinion, what caused it? Certainly, the farming drought/poor erosion control practices and "irrational exuberance" were contributory factors. However, the Fed made currency too cheap and interests rates too low during the 20s, then went too far to the opposite after the crash.

[Dman]

In your opinion, what caused it? Certainly, the farming drought/poor erosion control practices and "irrational exuberance" were contributory factors. However, the Fed made currency too cheap and interests rates too low during the 20s, then went too far to the opposite after the crash.

Many different variables, but for purposes of this discussion, basically capitalistic practices were the root cause. Economic practices such as overproduction and wealth concentration (along with so-called “trickle-down” theory) were certainly culprits. As for the stock market, a lot of it was similar to what we witnessed in the late 90’s. Greed – businesses were pulling accounting/financial stunts that would make Enron look like a choir boy, talking up their own stock to outrageous levels, while investors inflated the market like a ponzi scheme, buying stock simply for speculation rather than actual investment purposes. Once reality caught up, the true state of the economy was revealed, but worsened considerably by the adverse actions going on above, which caused people to panic and lose all confidence in business/economy. Then the gov came along and sprinkled salt in the wound. The Fed’s practices before and after certainly made things worse than they potentially could have been, but was not the root cause.

The reason it wasn’t as bad a few years ago compared to what happened in the 30’s, was that there truly was still a working economy underneath the BS and people did not lose all confidence (my belief is people are wiser investors now than then, and not near so many people were dumb enough to sink their life savings into the market). One could also say the gov has a little better idea of how to handle these things now than then, but the jury is still out on that one.

[Hypnos]

Dman,

Without obscenely low interest rates, overproduction and egregious speculation isn't possible, because all this requires currency to become worthless: a) forcing wealth into the form of hard assets, and b) making loans cost nothing.

The reason that the Fed is at fault is because the economy relies on the Fed to establish the proper value of currency, gauging demand for transactions versus GDP growth. Deflation wouldn't be so bad (possible using hard currency like gold), just to dampen any economic recoveries.

[Dman]

Dman,

Without obscenely low interest rates, overproduction and egregious speculation isn't possible, because all this requires currency to become worthless: a) forcing wealth into the form of hard assets, and b) making loans cost nothing.

No, that isn’t necessary. Consider very low tax rates, which puts more money into the system. This effectively creates a large supply of money available, which as basic economics dictate, makes money cheap. This is part of what was going on in the 20’s.

There was also the vastly unregulated business atmosphere, with many monopolistic companies, which are also quite capable of overproducing regardless of interest rates.

The disparity of wealth was also quite large due to the laissez-faire policies of the time, resulting in an unstable economy (supply growing larger than demand as the wealthy held their money or invested it, often poorly, instead of spending it on goods and services). So again, regardless of interest rates, the economy was unable to support the existing business climate.

You also have your basic premise of the unregulated atmosphere of the times regarding stock trading, which allowed investors to borrow heavily to invest. Naturally at the first sign of trouble, everyone made a run for it to try & cover their heavy debts, banks couldn’t handle the cash outflow, etc. etc.



The reason that the Fed is at fault is because the economy relies on the Fed to establish the proper value of currency, gauging demand for transactions versus GDP growth. Deflation wouldn't be so bad (possible using hard currency like gold), just to dampen any economic recoveries.

It is conceivable that the Fed SHOULD have raised interest rates in the 20’s, which is probably what it would do today; but to blame that for the depression is contrary. I suppose one could blame the Fed for not doing enough to STOP the depression, but again, it was not the Fed that was the root CAUSE of the depression. It was due to the problems mentioned above.

[odoylerules]

I'm not sure what you mean by "capitialism died in 1929," it doesn't make sense.

The stock market crash didn't create mass unempolyment, it did though, wipe out market speculators. The Federal Reserve's servere monetary contraction by 33% between 1929-1933 created the mass unemployment.

"The Federal Reserve definately caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929-1933."
-- Milton Friedman

Again, according to Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Laudrate economist:


"The stock of money, prices and output
was decidedly more unstable after the
establishment of the Reserve System
than before. The most dramatic period
of instablility in output was, of course,
the period between the two wars, which
include the severe [monetary]
contractions of 1920-21, 1929-33, and
1937-38. No other 20-year period in
American history contains as many as
three such severe contractions.

This evidence persuades me that at
least a third of the price rise during
and just after World War 1 is
attributable to the establishment of the
Federal Reserve System... and that the
severity of each of the major
contractions -- 1920-21, 1929-33, and
1937-38 -- is directly attributable to acts
of commision and omission by the
Reserve authorities...

Any system which gives so much power
and so much descretion to a few men,
[so] that mistakes -- excusable or not --
can have such far reaching effects, is a
bad system. It is a bad system to
believers in freedom just because it
gives a few men such power without
any affective check by the body politic --
this is the key political arguement against
an independent central bank...

To paraphrase Clemenceau money is
much too serious a matter to be left to
the central bankers."

--Milton Friedman


Passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson the end of capitalism?

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

-Woodrow Wilson

[Miss Anthropic]

dont be a moron, and what liberal/keynsian story you wanker, i just took a look at the history of capitalism, the US unemployment rates throughout the years and compared it to the life of communism. capitalism was an abysmal failure. dont even try to make it look otherwise unless you can back up your own statement without supporting mine.

wanker
I don't know what the hell you are talking about Shai Gar.....Things might not be fabulous for everyone here, but enough people make tons of money that it isn't going to change. And if you are going to be poor somewhere in the world, you might as well be poor here--goods are certainly cheap enough, because of all the overseas labor people bitch about. And the welfare system is hardly worth mentioning; that is something that more socialized countries provide, but everyone pays more taxes. The only complaint I have is lack of affordable medical care. America will never turn away from capitalism.

[Hypnos]

No, that isn’t necessary. Consider very low tax rates, which puts more money into the system. This effectively creates a large supply of money available, which as basic economics dictate, makes money cheap. This is part of what was going on in the 20’s.
a) Tax rates have steadily increased since WWI; they were not suddenly slashed during the 20s so as to cause a balloon of cheap currency.

b) If the tax burden does change, it's the Fed's job to predict the change in transactional demand in the currency and act accordingly.

Fiat currency is a huge responsibility; is stable wage pricing worth it?


There was also the vastly unregulated business atmosphere, with many monopolistic companies, which are also quite capable of overproducing regardless of interest rates.
This is an interesting aspect of the issue. How many monopolies have there been without favorable gov't regulation? DeBeers is the only one I can think of, having cornered a selective natural resource in a luxury market, and even they are weakening.

Some would argue that Microsoft is a monopoly. They've only been accused of "anticompetitive practices;" I can't see how they've created a deadweight loss (http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls.pl?fcd=dsp&key=deadweight+loss").


The disparity of wealth was also quite large due to the laissez-faire policies of the time, resulting in an unstable economy (supply growing larger than demand as the wealthy held their money or invested it, often poorly, instead of spending it on goods and services). So again, regardless of interest rates, the economy was unable to support the existing business climate.
There _was_ demand -- people were just buying on credit, abetted by low interest rates.

Generally speaking ---

Increase in demand for extant goods is not the only mode of economic growth -- innovation and optimization of capital flows create real wealth.

This leaves two plausible modes of "socially harmful" irrational behavior:

1) Some rich people are stupid or spendthrift, and therefore more prone to invest into inefficiencies, because they can without going broke.

2) Some rich people are overly conservative so they lock up capital for personal security, at an opportunity cost to themselves.

And two plausible modes of "socially harmful" rational behavior:

3) The currency is deflationary.

4) Some rich people have a low risk tolerance (it's a subjective preference of a market agent, like strawberry v. vanilla), and lock up capital at an opportunity cost to the economy entire.

Again, the Fed is to blame for (3), as it was for the period of several years after the crash. Any coercive attempts to rectify (1), (2) and (4) are far worse than the problems themselves -- the 20th century has been a resounding rejection of economic planning. Hayek predicted this in the 40s in his The Road to Serfdom, and reportedly pumped his fist at the television as the Berlin Wall fell, shortly before he died.

An articulate counterargument would be the idea that as capital concentrates into a few hands, market structures optimize to their needs (luxury automobiles, jewelry, etc.), rather than to the needs of the "masses," presumably food, toothpaste, etc. The bottom line is that currently and historically, the freer the economy, the more prosperous all of its citizens will be.

In closing, I will concede one important public good: education. The gov't seems pretty incompetent in providing it, but if people are worth little more than how quickly they can dig a ditch, capital holders will indeed me more prone to spend on whatever tangible goods are handy and less likely to invest in enterprise to develop new/cheaper ones -- that requires human capital.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Shai,

Do people often accuse you of being a bullshitter? You could at least sketch out an outline of your master plan before trying to gain recruits.

[Dman]

The stock market crash didn't create mass unempolyment, it did though, wipe out market speculators. The Federal Reserve's servere monetary contraction by 33% between 1929-1933 created the mass unemployment.


No. The Fed didn't help prevent the depression but it was NOT THE CAUSE. People made a run on the banks and wiped them out, eroding confidence in the economy (which was already on the brink as I outlined above). Why the run on the banks? The stock market crash.

The loss of confidence in an already poor economic environment were the Cause. The Fed aggravated it, but even in the absence of the Fed, there still would have been a depression. I don't care what some talking heads said regardless of their credentials, especially when we don't know the exact context the statements were made in or how guilty the speakers felt for their own actions (or inactions) nor their ulterior motives.

You have to look beyond the surface. What were the economic conditions at the time? Why were they like that? How much influence did the Fed really have on the economy before the depression? What were the exact levers the Fed was using, and how closely do they correlate with what was going on? I don't have time to answer it all, but I suggest those who disagree to do some research (not just google for quotes or opinions).

[Dman]

This is an interesting aspect of the issue. How many monopolies have there been without favorable gov't regulation? DeBeers is the only one I can think of, having cornered a selective natural resource in a luxury market, and even they are weakening.

I was referring to "monopolistic" companies, hoping to avoid the whole "what constitutes a monopoly" argument, but oh well. Let's just say there were MANY companies that were operating LIKE monopolies at the time, and their practices were having the same negative effects as monopolies on the economy.


There _was_ demand -- people were just buying on credit, abetted by low interest rates.

Of course there was demand. The point is there wasn't ENOUGH demand to match the huge surplus of supply!! Basic economics.

[Hypnos]

I was referring to "monopolistic" companies, hoping to avoid the whole "what constitutes a monopoly" argument, but oh well. Let's just say there were MANY companies that were operating LIKE monopolies at the time, and their practices were having the same negative effects as monopolies on the economy.
Fair enough. *


Of course there was demand. The point is there wasn't ENOUGH demand to match the huge surplus of supply!! Basic economics.
:thelook: There was real demand (even on credit this counts), then it evaporated when the credit crashed. My argument is that this is the Fed's fault, improperly manipulating the currency.


* My point in participating on this topic is to refute the contention that the unregulated free market produced the Great Depression. If you bring up monopolistic companies, then I will say that monopolies only exist because of the favorable gov't dispensation. If you say that there was a crash in demand, it's because the Fed mishandled the dollar. Growth/retraction cycles are to be expected, but the gov't almost always makes it worse, though if skillfull, can make them regular in frequency.

[Darren]

no, because in a meritocracy you are not allowed to leave anything to your children, all your worldly goods get sold and go to the community.

:rolleyes2 And how, exactly, do you propose to enforce this? I'll simply give all my money to my children BEFORE I die!

[Darren]

I'm not sure what you mean by "capitialism died in 1929," it doesn't make sense.

The stock market crash didn't create mass unempolyment, it did though, wipe out market speculators. The Federal Reserve's servere monetary contraction by 33% between 1929-1933 created the mass unemployment.

"The Federal Reserve definately caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929-1933."
-- Milton Friedman

Again, according to Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Laudrate economist:[/b]

Appeal to authority noted. I can parade plenty of Nobel Prize/Bates medal winning economists in front of you who vehemently disagree with Friedman.

There are many schools of thought in Economics, Friedman's is just one of them.

[Shai Gar]

authority means little.

[odoylerules]

Appeal to authority noted. I can parade plenty of Nobel Prize/Bates medal winning economists in front of you who vehemently disagree with Friedman.

There are many schools of thought in Economics, Friedman's is just one of them.

ok

[Shai Gar]

simple darren i shoot your children. but what if you dont die?

[relaxo]

simple darren i shoot your children. but what if you dont die?

Of course you will shoot his children. All anti-capitalists have no problem with killing people for their cause.

Notice how all belief systems are against freedom in one form or another?
Religion demands you to take care of the poor and support the church.
Communism, fascism and all other forms of socialism demand you take care of the poor and support the state or community.

No other system except capitalism demands that you take care of yourself and live your life the way you wish to, the best you can.
No other systems says your life belongs to you, no matter what your faults.
Under capitalism you can be greedy, selfish, giving, caring, good, bad, poor, rich, fat , slim, disabled, or be of any ethinc group. It even accepts those who are against capitalism.
No other system accepts people for what they are. All other systems demand you change and make sacrifice, that your life is not your own, that you owe some of your life to others.

It is amazing that Capitalism, which is the free flow of capital, can inspire so much fear amongst tyrants.
The free flow of wealth, which represents your productive ability, is death to tyranny.
Those opposed to capitalism are opposed to the idea that you can do what you wish with your wealth, which is to oppose what you do with your life.
Tyranny can not exist in a system where capital flows freely.
Once restrictions are placed on this, you start to experience tyranny.

Marx created the word capitalism to describe what he hated.
I wear it as a badge of honour.

[Dman]

Fair enough. *


:thelook: There was real demand (even on credit this counts), then it evaporated when the credit crashed. My argument is that this is the Fed's fault, improperly manipulating the currency.


* My point in participating on this topic is to refute the contention that the unregulated free market produced the Great Depression. If you bring up monopolistic companies, then I will say that monopolies only exist because of the favorable gov't dispensation. If you say that there was a crash in demand, it's because the Fed mishandled the dollar. Growth/retraction cycles are to be expected, but the gov't almost always makes it worse, though if skillfull, can make them regular in frequency.

A tired cliche, but - agree to disagree. I can easily see how your argument can be interpreted correctly, just as I see mine. It's tricky, kind of a "which came first - chicken or egg" debate ( I say egg, seems obvious from an evolutionary standpoint). I suppose I will conclude to say the Fed contributed to the great depression, along with various other factors. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a great depression if only one of those factors was removed; rather, it was the culmination of all factors.

I just don't have the energy right now to get into another monopolies/anti-government intervention argument. Enjoyed it while it lasted though.

Withdrawn.

[Nighthawk]

the only difference to the last one is that the americans give a token sum to appease the masses, though it doesnt appease all.
If 40% of what I earn going to taxes is a token sum, then I would hate to see full blown socialism.

[Dman]

Under capitalism you can be greedy, selfish, giving, caring, good, bad, poor, rich, fat , slim, disabled, or be of any ethinc group. It even accepts those who are against capitalism.

Not agreeing nor disagreeing with your post at this time, but I do like the above statement. Reminds me of something a friend of mine in high school said - "In America, you have the freedom to be poor". His point was that everyone in the US has the opportunity to better themselves, and conversely, also has the ability to worsen themselves if they so choose.

I'd like to hear from the disagreeing parties, particularly those in socialist-type countries.

[relaxo]

"In America, you have the freedom to be poor". His point was that everyone in the US has the opportunity to better themselves, and conversely, also has the ability to worsen themselves if they so choose.

I'd like to hear from the disagreeing parties, particularly those in socialist-type countries.

Well, I'm not in America. Nor was I refering to the USA. I was refering to capitalism. I know it's hard to believe, but there are other nations in the world that have certain degrees of capitalism.

Are there still socialist type countries? Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos. Any others?

[Crispy]

Found this article about when the manic street preachers visited cuba when their masses against the classes single(best thing thev'e done for years) had the cuban flag on. This article features infomation on the regime and statitics about the cuban goverment. I found this article on http://www.socialistparty.org.uk

Cuba At A Crossroads
THE MANICS - who have put the Cuban flag on the sleeve of their recent hit record Masses Against the Classes - received widespread publicity in Cuba and in Britain during their recent visit to the island.

Contrasting Cuba to their native South Wales, one of the band, Nicky Wire, declared: "What about the human rights of the 5,000 people who lost their jobs in South Wales last week... who are now having to work in call centres? No one talks about that. [Cuba] may be imperfect," he says, "but Cuba is the nearest thing we have on the planet to a true socialist state... it has higher literacy levels than the UK. There is a decent health service available to all and the average life expectancy is 76, which is higher than in the US."

Fidel Castro recently tapped into this mood by declaring that he is now a "Lennonist", as he unveiled a statue to John Lennon in Havana. The head of the Cuban writers association has stretched the truth somewhat, however, in declaring: "The tenets of our Cuban Revolution match the beliefs of John Lennon". Nevertheless, the stance of the Manic Street Preachers does illustrate the growing rage amongst young people in particular against neo-liberal policies.

As we have documented elsewhere, especially in the book Cuba Socialism and Democracy, there is much in Cuba which contrasts favourably with the situation in the capitalist world.

Before the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the average life expectancy of men was 48 and 54 for women. Now male expectancy is 74 - the same as in the UK - and for women it is 76 (79 in the UK). Infant mortality is 7.1 per 100,000 births, which is not much higher than Britain's.

Besieged fortress
THE ADVANTAGES of a planned economy, even in the poor besieged fortress which Cuba is today, are undoubtedly shown in welfare. Officials from the Department of Health in Britain, together with 100 General Practitioners, recently visited Cuba and were astonished at what they saw.

Healthcare expenditure is £750 a head in Britain, whereas in Cuba it is £7. Cuba has 7,000 GPs, the same number as Britain, but with a fifth of the population. There is one family doctor for every 500 to 700 people in Cuba, compared to 1,800 to 2,000 here.

These and similar achievements in housing and education have been in the teeth of the economic vice which US imperialism has used against the Cuban economy, particularly in the precarious 1990s.

This, together with the spiteful withdrawal of the huge subsidies from the former USSR, which previously underwrote the Cuban economy, struck a savage blow against Cuba's economy and the living standards of its people.

The country's fate hung by a thread in the early 1990s, with a drop of 13.7% in the economy in 1993. Cuba has since managed to painfully crawl out of the abyss and now it has one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America - growing by 6.2% in 1999 and 5.5% per cent in 2000.

Foreign investment
Having a planned economy still has big advantages over a so-called 'free market' capitalist one. This is despite the drawbacks of Cuba's inefficient bureaucratic one-party system of government, with power concentrated in the hands of an elite in the Cuban 'Communist' Party.

However, it has also been boosted by tourism, which has grown massively in recent years bringing in excess of $2.2 billion of revenue to the Cuban government. The estimated $3 billion annual remittances from Cuban exiles, which are received by about two million of Cuba's eleven million population, has also buoyed up the Cuban economy.

The Castro government was compelled to retreat in the 1990s with the introduction of partial 'dollarisation' and the opening to the market through both foreign capital and small-scale industry. This has some parallels with the introduction of the New Economic Policy in Russia in 1921-22.

Since the green light was given to foreign capital in 1995, 370 'mixed enterprises' - partnerships between outside investors and the Cuban government - have been formed. European capitalism, particularly Spanish capitalism, has been the main investor.

This roughly translates into foreign investment of over $4 billion. This has generally benefited the Cuban economy and helped compensate for the disappointing sugar crop of just under four million tonnes, the lowest in 50 years.

Cuba is still dependent on foreign oil imports and has been prey, like much of the neo-colonial world, to the vagaries of oil price on world markets.

In 1999, it owed more than $300 million to oil 'providers'. However, some salvation was at hand as a result of the radicalisation in Venezuela, which brought to power the Hugo Chavez regime.

Following Castro's visit to Venezuela in October 2000, Chavez agreed to supply Cuba with crude oil to the equivalent of about one-third of domestic consumption over a five year period, at an average price of $25 a barrel. Moreover, repayment by Cuba - unlike other deals which Venezuela has cut with neighbouring countries in Central America and the Caribbean - will be in bartered goods and services.

But, the economic concessions that the Cuban government has made have, particularly through 'dollarisation', opened the pores through which elements of capitalism have developed. The number of small businesses and legally 'self-employed workers' has mushroomed.

A parallel economy has also developed in dollars, to which the government has been compelled to turn a blind eye. The average monthly wage is 232 Cuban pesos ($11). This is not enough to cover the basic needs of the average Cuban worker or family.

Those in the 'informal sector', reliant on tourism, linked to the 'mixed enterprises', can not only get by but also live relatively well. According to the Chicago Tribune (28 January 2001), "bell boys are better paid than surgeons".

This inevitably undermines the very supporters of the regime, who are the majority, who work largely in the official sector and are paid in pesos. In order to make ends meet they are inevitably compelled to 'moonlight' in the black economy, working two or more jobs.

Shortages
DESPITE THE iron grip exercised over information by the state, enough accounts come out of Cuba to show the contradictory mood of the population. There is undoubtedly still mass support for the gains of the Revolution but a growing discontent is also evident with the continued shortages.

The crisis in transport, for instance, has led to a black market for spare parts for state-owned buses and taxis.

One taxi driver declared: "If we don't buy the parts, we cannot work... my family has to eat... I haven't worked for two months because the engine in my vehicle needed a part worth 10 pesos. Yet to solve the problem I had to pay $10".

This contrasts with a recent case of a provincial chief from the Interior Ministry who was found using prison labour to build a house for himself.

Prostitution, commonplace in pre-revolutionary times but largely eradicated by the revolution, has reappeared. Crime is on the increase and even in the much vaunted educational and health sectors, shortages have undermined the achievements.

Fewer teachers are signing up for training courses because more can be earned now outside of education than the $20 a month salary for the average teacher.

Unlike the Russian Revolution, the break with landlordism and capitalism carried through by Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and their compatriots in the 26 July Movement in 1959-60, was not the product of a conscious socialist working class with clear national and international aims.

They came to power largely at the head of a peasant and rural movement and were pushed by events - a combination of the pressure of an armed and aroused mass movement and the threats and actions of the US Eisenhower/Nixon administration - into breaking with landlordism and capitalism.

The regime which developed, while enormously popular and resonating throughout Latin America and the world, was not a regime constructed on the lines of the October 1917 Russian Revolution.

That Revolution saw the working class as the dominant force, ruling through democratic workers' and peasants' councils (soviets) and consciously seeing their revolution as the beginning of a European and world revolution. Workers' control and workers' management operated in this first phase of the Russian Revolution.

In Cuba, there were elements of workers' control and 'popular power' but real power was in the hands of a charismatic Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and their group. There were no elections for officials or right of recall, no soviets and the other features which were present in the Russian Revolution.

What we saw established in Cuba was a planned economy but shackled by a bureaucratic regime and heavily reliant for support, economically in particular, on the Stalinist regimes of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

It was this support which propped up the Cuban economy but at the price of a more and more bureaucratic regime.

Power was concentrated in the hands of an elite and wielded in particular by Fidel Castro and the group around him, who were not, and are still not, fully and democratically accountable to the mass of the organised working class and poor peasants and farmers.

Rock groups, and other workers and young people, in their hatred of what capitalism does to working people, sometimes support what appears to be the most extreme opponents of this system. They can understandably, but mistakenly, describe Cuba as 'socialist'.

However, socialism is not possible without democratic control and management. Even for a transistional regime between capitalism and socialism, like Cuba, to move towards the beginning of socialism there must be democracy and the revolution needs to be spread internationally.

End the blockade
WE OPPOSE and work to break the blockade of Cuba and do not side with the capitalist enemies of Cuba. But we also support the implementation of workers' democracy, including the demands raised above, together with the independence of the trade unions and the right of all parties which accept the planned economy to fight in open, free and fair democratic elections for the support of the Cuban working people.

We implacably oppose a return back to capitalism, which is now the declared approach of all shades of capitalist opinion. The main body of US capitalist opinion is also in favour of lifting the blockade of Cuba.

Its maintenance is seen as completely counterproductive to their aims of seeing a repetition of what happened in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union unfold in the Caribbean island.

However, US Vice-President Dick Cheney recently declared: "I don't think there is any prospect certainly for lifting those sanctions as long as Fidel Castro is there" (NBC's 'Meet the Press'). But the chorus clamouring for concessions to Cuba stretches from the US House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, to Wayne Smith, former Chief US diplomat in Havana, and the International Chamber of Commerce.

Yet, despite in words partially lifting the ban on US sales of food and medicine to Cuba, the restrictive conditions which still prevail, in effect cancel out this 'concession'.

Bush is also caught between what Wall Street and business wants and having to pay back those Miami groups who helped him steal the US presidential election, conscious they could also determine his brother Jeb's fate, in his bid for re-election as Florida state Governor in two years' time.

New revolution
CASTRO SEES the danger for him and his regime, and has recently clamped down on dissent. He has also been encouraged by the international situation, particularly the growing crisis of world capitalism.

Castro also needs the threat posed by the blockade to bolster his support in Cuba itself.

The more farsighted US capitalists calculate that by lifting the blockade this will open the floodgates to a capitalist restoration in Cuba. Such a development will be a blow, not just to the Cuban people, but to the struggle of the working class and poor peasants on a world scale.

Cuba is at a crossroads; the only sure guarantee that the counter-revolutionary schemes of the various groups of capitalists who greedily look for a 'slice of the action' in Cuba is by introducing a democratic socialist regime in the island.

To continue as before, as Castro clearly intends, risks the liquidation of the great gains of the Cuban Revolution. In the event of his death, the situation could change fundamentally, with the Cuban elite now divided as to the way forward.

Sections of the Bush administration believe that they can repeat the alleged experience of Reagan and Thatcher in bringing the USSR and Eastern Europe to its knees in the case of Cuba. However, the international background is entirely different with the onset of a world capitalist crisis and the greater room for manoeuvre of the Cuban regime.

Ultimately, however, only workers' democracy in Cuba can regenerate the Cuban Revolution, consolidate and improve on all its achievements and ideals, sparking off in turn a renewed wave of successful democratic socialist revolutions in the Latin American continent.

[floyd]

one problem with capitalism is multi-generational. if everyone started at zero capitalism might be more ideal. but multi-generational accrued wealth creates power imbalances which potentially isolate power in the hands of too few people who 'did not earn it'. this increases the danger of singular influences on the world whose power is a result of money not merit.

a limited number of wealthy individuals/companies is also a problem in a government that can easily be bought which i think might be the biggest problem presently. there is a meritocracy book by an english author named young which touches on the danger's of psuedo meritocracy. a recent 20/20 oscars show where they focused on wealthy actors who had grown up poor highlights a conscious or unconscious delusion pushed in america, that anyone can be rich. I think this is a rationalization on the part of people that live excessively to justify their lifestyle, but i think the average american buys into it. the ultimate question is what kind of system ensures the greatest amount of freedom for the average person. i think it would be some type of mixed system. but the complexity of mixed system potentially requires a more intelligent society to embrace it than the present american one.

[Hypnos]

a limited number of wealthy individuals/companies is also a problem in a government that can easily be bought which i think might be the biggest problem presently. [...]
Precisely! This is what makes "old money" dangerous, and not just pathetic, and has contributed to the stagnation of established, wealthy cities. The game is to adopt regulations (work conditions, zoning, etc.) to protect their own business and real estate interests, choking out burgeoning competition.

The question is, should old money be outlawed, or should gov't not be in a position to influence business, and thereby vulnerable to influence peddling? I think the latter option is far more practical and palatable.

[jgreensp]

"if everyone started at zero capitalism might be more ideal. but multi-generational accrued wealth creates power imbalances which potentially isolate power in the hands of too few people who 'did not earn it'. this increases the danger of singular influences on the world whose power is a result of money not merit"

The idea of everyone starting at the same wealth completely undermines capitalism and would greatly reduce the freedoms that indirectly flow from it. If a parent wishes to leave wealth for their children, that is their decision and imposing a political mechanisim that disallows this would be completely un-democratic. The parent who spends like a playboy and leaves nothing for his/her child may also be free do so. Again, the individual must be empowered and make the neccesary wealth transfer decisions. Furthermore, I cannot help but point out the fact that in many cases multigenerational wealth/power usually dwindles as the offspring of the weathy generally lack the ambition and drive that is invariably neccesary to succeed in a free market economy. No other system could successfuly spawn the creativity and hunger in the lowest classes inducing them to eventually enter the realms of the upper class. Finally, your point about too much money in the hands of too few who have "not earned it" is disconcerting for a couple of reasons. First, almost every other system other than capitalism results in the exact phenomenon you have just described. Second, it is a logical fallacy to assume that money in the hands of those who "earned it" is preferable to money in the hands of those who did not. There are countless examples that could prove the exact opposite. Any concentration of immense wealth in the hands of a few individuals is potentially dangerous but a true free market economy is the system that can best address this situation by producing checks and balances as a direct consequence of the invisible hand.

"but the complexity of mixed system potentially requires a more intelligent society to embrace it than the present american one"
How would you define an intelligent society? One could argue that the way a society organizes itself is indicative of how intelligent it is. America has organized its society in a way that allows for the greatest productivity, the most creative innovation and the greatest GDP per capita.

[floyd]

it's not just old money anymore, bill gates does not come from old money nor do the google founders (but their kids might). so the big problem is preventing the super wealthy from abusing their power, and if that can't be done, then a more ideal system would prevent people from becoming super wealthy without lowering the freedom of the average person. white collar crime is not considered real crime based on prison time and social opinion presently and that means the deterrent for white collar crime which may threaten freedom more than blue collar crime is minimal. if pure capitalism results in the highest level of freedom for the average person than i would support it. but i don't think 'pure', one dimensional, anything does, i think multi-dimensional hybrid systems - which america is - are a better option.

the american system of government is good comparitively speaking but the black and white tv was good comparitively speaking to the radio. i don't think the american government was specifically engineered to prevent the kind of individual and corporate power that exists in the new world. corporations, i think, are becoming the new countries. some day their might be a google-land, and it might be a better place to live. but the point is - the problem of corporate manipulation of goverment is just not comprehended by the average american. there is more concern with religion, hollywood, and patriotism than exploring world affairs or the best form of goverment. that's where level of intelligence limits quality of goverment.

[Dman]

Well, I'm not in America. Nor was I refering to the USA. I was refering to capitalism.

Oh, then I don’t care about your opinion. jk

I didn’t say you were referring to America, or you were American. Nor do I care.



I know it's hard to believe, but there are other nations in the world that have certain degrees of capitalism.

You’re kidding! I thought USA invented everything! It's all about the US!


Are there still socialist type countries? Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos. Any others?

just canada.

[INTerloPer]

Lets pretend for a moment that we live in a world where, upon our death, our material possesions and accrued wealth get liquified and passed back to the state. Now think of the problems that will occur. For example, why should I choose to work one day longer than necessary to provide for my needs? Why should I bother innovating and mass-producing when I know that my wealth will not be there to provide for my children and grandchildren? Why should I build a better mousetrap if my rewards are simply a government loan, to be called back upon my death? These collectivist ideals encourage stagnation and mediocrity.

[Dman]

Lets pretend for a moment that we live in a world where, upon our death, our material possesions and accrued wealth get liquified and passed back to the state. Now think of the problems that will occur. For example, why should I choose to work one day longer than necessary to provide for my needs? Why should I bother innovating and mass-producing when I know that my wealth will not be there to provide for my children and grandchildren? Why should I build a better mousetrap if my rewards are simply a government loan, to be called back upon my death? These collectivist ideals encourage stagnation and mediocrity.

That's an excellent point. Although I am opposed to widening of the gap between the rich and poor, because it ultimately resultes in everybody losing, I strongly disagree with the notion of the gov’t taking what you have earned when you die, simply to prevent the wealth from being transferred to your family/heirs. Perhaps instead a model could be created to provide incentives to ensure that the wealth will be used in a constructive manner, rather than for people to simply live off the proceeds.

[C.J.Woolf]

Lets pretend for a moment that we live in a world where, upon our death, our material possesions and accrued wealth get liquified and passed back to the state. Now think of the problems that will occur. For example, why should I choose to work one day longer than necessary to provide for my needs? Why should I bother innovating and mass-producing when I know that my wealth will not be there to provide for my children and grandchildren? Why should I build a better mousetrap if my rewards are simply a government loan, to be called back upon my death? These collectivist ideals encourage stagnation and mediocrity.
People who make fortunes tend to keep working long after they and their descendants are set for life because they like to work, or because they are competitive and money is the way they keep score.

I haven't seen any evidence that top earners work any less hard because the top marginal income tax rate is 50% rather than 20% -- but that's another topic.

[Hypnos]

I haven't seen any evidence that top earners work any less hard because the top marginal income tax rate is 50% rather than 20% -- but that's another topic.
They do move their earnings potential to areas with lower marginal taxes: long-term capital investments, real estate, and small business.

There seem to be two schools of thought on this: this is a merit good, because we want fewer wage slaves (even if they are well compensated), and that the market irrationally tends to corporate employment and this is a good correction.

Both are full of shit, IMHO.