Capitalism with no Government

[JamesHunt]

I was just wondering what the world would be like if we got rid of Government and let it be run by pure Capitalism. ie, there was no competition laws, mandatory taxes, minimum wage etc... would it eventually sort itself out?

[trish]

No weekends. No vacations paid or otherwise. 18 hour days every day of the week but Sunday, 52 weeks a year. Paid in credit at the company store. Child labor. Families in servitude for generations. Just look at how corporations behave in third world nations. We've been through that and it did sort itself out. People forgot. But they may so find out again what is was like and how much pain, cruelty and hurt it took to sort it all out.

[Stavros]

Presumably the armed forces would be raised by subscription...? You would have small armies paid for by local people. Maybe they could be paid for by private enterprise with a guarantee of branding exclusivity: the Iowa-McDonalds Airborne Division; the Texas-Apple Rangers; The Washington-Microsoft Parachute Regiment; and so on. They would probably give themselves tax breaks for defending local communities. Gosh, is it Monday already?

[hippifried]

would it eventually sort itself out?
Nope. It'd just devolve back to feudalism. But then again... Maybe if the labor unions took control before the full monopolization... Of course that'd be a monopoly too.

[russtafa]

What about us fascist types where do we fit in we want to get rid of all the above

[Stavros]

Your problem, Russtafa, is that with no government there is no state, with no state there is no fascism: as Gentile, the Italian theorist of Fascism put it: Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Hitler's German variant, National Socialism is rooted in a concept of the state as an historical emergence of the National Socialist state as the will of the people -the expression in politics of their desire and reason combined- he presented himself as a 'wise leader' (don't laugh) whose sole service was the state and the people (=Everything I did I did for Germany). There is some historical provenance for this in Hobbes Leviathan, and Plato's Republic in some structural sense of absolutist authority ordering the state as a rational body/machine. If that is too academic an explanation, then without government and the state you are, in common parlance, fucked.

[Ben]

I was just wondering what the world would be like if we got rid of Government and let it be run by pure Capitalism. ie, there was no competition laws, mandatory taxes, minimum wage etc... would it eventually sort itself out?

Cable: 'Unfettered capitalism kills competition' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh9YwgBOYoY)

[Ben]

I was just wondering what the world would be like if we got rid of Government and let it be run by pure Capitalism. ie, there was no competition laws, mandatory taxes, minimum wage etc... would it eventually sort itself out?

Interesting question. Milton Friedman advocated so-called free markets. Not entirely though. He said there was a role for government.
Oh, I think, um, Somalia has absolute free markets. Per capita income is about 600 bucks. So, America would slowly turn into Somalia -- ha ha ha!
Leo Panitch, a professor of political economy up there in Canada, said that what we are bearing witness to with so-called free market principles and neoliberalism (privatization, free capital movement, cuts in public spending) is essentially, in his words, a - race - to - the - bottom.

Power of the Market - The Pencil - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8)

[russtafa]

Your problem, Russtafa, is that with no government there is no state, with no state there is no fascism: as Gentile, the Italian theorist of Fascism put it: Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Hitler's German variant, National Socialism is rooted in a concept of the state as an historical emergence of the National Socialist state as the will of the people -the expression in politics of their desire and reason combined- he presented himself as a 'wise leader' (don't laugh) whose sole service was the state and the people (=Everything I did I did for Germany). There is some historical provenance for this in Hobbes Leviathan, and Plato's Republic in some structural sense of absolutist authority ordering the state as a rational body/machine. If that is too academic an explanation, then without government and the state you are, in common parlance, fucked.yes truly great thoughts.the state will look after you and you will look after the state and those out side of the state are fucked or those that reject the state are fucked

[trish]

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

__John Donne

[Stavros]

Russtafa, I think for some people the State is a menace, an obstacle to freedom; for others it is a glorified form of community. Hobbes developed his theory of a 'wise' or rational leader in control of a state with absolute powers as a result of his personal experience of the revolutionary wars during which he was forced out of the country. But his famous description of anarchy which he called a 'state of nature' in which people were constantly warring with each other and in which life was 'poor, nasty, brutish and short' was not wholly right. When left to their own devices, humans form communities in which rules or a sort are created -it is true of the Bedouin, the 'Aboriginals' of Australia, and crime families for that matter. At least if you have a state with an elected government you can choose; none of Melbourne's residents chose the Moran's, for example. Your choice.

[russtafa]

I find it funny that a lot of so called rebels of society if given power become very dictorial and want no freedom for others

[Ben]

I find it funny that a lot of so called rebels of society if given power become very dictorial and want no freedom for others

That's the very nature of government: to concentrate power. It doesn't matter who it is. There's no such thing as a magnanimous leader.
That's why the Founding Fathers set up different branches of government. They wanted checks and balances. Because they were fearful of a dictatorship.
And so it is the natural inclination of any government actor, if ya like, to concentrate power. Whether it be Bush Jr. or Obama. The tendency is to consolidate power.
And, too, governments are not benevolent institutions. They serve power systems. And the dominant power system in America is transnational corporations.
Everyone knows this. I hope -- ha ha ha!

[russtafa]

That's the very nature of government: to concentrate power. It doesn't matter who it is. There's no such thing as a magnanimous leader.
That's why the Founding Fathers set up different branches of government. They wanted checks and balances. Because they were fearful of a dictatorship.
And so it is the natural inclination of any government actor, if ya like, to concentrate power. Whether it be Bush Jr. or Obama. The tendency is to consolidate power.
And, too, governments are not benevolent institutions. They serve power systems. And the dominant power system in America is transnational corporations.
Everyone knows this. I hope -- ha ha ha!
well if you had a socialist system with cooperation with the big corps you would have a fascist government

[hippifried]

It's all about pooling resources.

I see capitalism as a form of privatized socialism with a very narrow scope. It's not the be all & end all. It just pools finance. It has absolutely nothing to do with benevolence.

[russtafa]

when has anything to do with humans been benevolence?

[hippifried]

Society itself is benevolence by it's general nature. We became social critters to pool our resources & elevate our species from the status of prey animal.

[Ben]

well if you had a socialist system with cooperation with the big corps you would have a fascist government

Mussolini coined the term fascism. It's when government power and corporate power merge and become one.
The noted American author and essayist Gore Vidal said: we live in a society [and system] whereby it's socialism for the rich (think: bank bailouts and bailing out insurance companies... which is antithetical to capitalism) and free enterprise for everyone else.
And, russtafa, you mentioned benevolence. Well, people, by and large, are benevolent, are kind and caring. They are also moral and decent. But the corporate culture, I'd argue, tries to drive this out of people's heads.
It starts from infancy and through school and TV. You know, you are the only person that matters. (Now, granted, at some level you have to be selfish. Everyone understands this.) So, the culture, a corporate/materialist/consumerist culture, focuses on maximizing one's own gain... and who cares about anyone else.
Now corporations are required by law to do exactly that. People aren't. I think people have to, well, rediscover their humanity, their decency, their morality. In spite of the wider culture that tries to SUPPRESS these deeply human impulses.
The iconic George Carlin sums up everything:

George Carlin -"Who Really Controls America" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI)

[russtafa]

America is so far removed from socialist system that they might as well be in a different world

[robertlouis]

America is so far removed from socialist system that they might as well be in a different world

Couldn't agree more. When they call Obama's programme "socialist" it's utterly meaningless.

[Ben]

America is so far removed from socialist system that they might as well be in a different world

Well, as I previously pointed out, it's socialism for the rich and free enterprise for everyone else. The libertarian Lew Rockwell (he has his own site: http://lewrockwell.com/) has pointed out: All the big banks in America are Zombie banks. They're bankrupt.
But we, the American taxpayers, keep propping them up. That's just absolute theft and pure corruption to the bone. (The way a capitalist system is supposed to work is quite simple: when the lender lends he or she assumes the risk and if they lose, well, they take that loss. The private losses of the banks have been transferred to the men and women [the taxpayers] of America. It's criminal. It's corruption. It's fascism. It's fascism the way Mussolini coined the term. A nexus, or link, between corporations and government.)
Ron Paul has said he would let these banks fail. Because he knows they're bankrupt and that we taxpayers keep propping them up. Year after year after year.
Ron Paul also pointed out that America has, well, a sort of soft fascism. Whereby big business and government have a close and cozy relationship. They're in bed together. Well, they're married and their marriage is doing quite well -- ha ha ha!

Ron Paul: Corporatism Reason for Bailouts - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg6_QVcssgM)

[Ben]

Ron Paul Says Barack Obama is "Not a Socialist" - Calls Him "Corporatist" Instead - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSaQ7WPd_LM)

[Ben]

Thom Hartmann : Libritarian Paradise...will it work? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks4f7NB22aM)

[Ben]

Libertarian Islands Created By PayPal Founder? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0Ty9jFRtOw)

[Ben]

A right-wing perspective:

Ezra Levant On Peter Thiels Libertarian Paradise - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faMLbABAiaw)

[Ben]

Hartmann: There are no Free Market Fairies... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGliqzRBpQQ&feature=related)

[Ben]

This is nauseating:

Libertarian Hearts Collapsing Buildings and Diarrhea - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ4lvRNDWcs)

[muh_muh]

so lemme see he wants to get rid of the department of commerce without even knowing what it does and he wants to also get rid of free education
i think theres a correlation there somewhere

[Ben]

so lemme see he wants to get rid of the department of commerce without even knowing what it does and he wants to also get rid of free education
i think theres a correlation there somewhere

He sounds fairly young. And, well, one gets caught up, as it were, in a libertarian paradise... without thinking it through. (A few years ago I was a libertarian. Thinking: yes!, this could work -- ha ha!)
Here is Noam Chomsky explaining how the Internet came out of the PUBLIC sector. Ya know, the risks, the ideas and the costs came out of the public sector. (Places like M.I.T. and the University of Chicago.) And then handed over to the private sector. (That isn't free market capitalism.) And the same is true with respect to TV, radio, lasers etc., etc. The initial investment comes from government. As well as the ideas, the risks. (I mean, it wasn't Bill Gates who put up the initial capital for computers and the Internet. But Chomsky is a bit harsh in calling Bill Gates a parasite.)
So, we have to be honest about where the initial investment came from with respect to computers and the Net. It wasn't Gates and Steve Jobs that threw all their money into the research and development and then reaped the rewards. The INITIAL CAPITAL came from the broader public. This is how state-capitalism/a semi-market system works... and business people like it that way.... And, too, it's called: externalities.... :)

Noam Chomsky - On Internet and U..tube (1997) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHzG0I_LCE0)

THE CORPORATION [423] Externalities - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7kb8-965WA)

[russtafa]

Well, as I previously pointed out, it's socialism for the rich and free enterprise for everyone else. The libertarian Lew Rockwell (he has his own site: http://lewrockwell.com/) has pointed out: All the big banks in America are Zombie banks. They're bankrupt.
But we, the American taxpayers, keep propping them up. That's just absolute theft and pure corruption to the bone. (The way a capitalist system is supposed to work is quite simple: when the lender lends he or she assumes the risk and if they lose, well, they take that loss. The private losses of the banks have been transferred to the men and women [the taxpayers] of America. It's criminal. It's corruption. It's fascism. It's fascism the way Mussolini coined the term. A nexus, or link, between corporations and government.)
Ron Paul has said he would let these banks fail. Because he knows they're bankrupt and that we taxpayers keep propping them up. Year after year after year.
Ron Paul also pointed out that America has, well, a sort of soft fascism. Whereby big business and government have a close and cozy relationship. They're in bed together. Well, they're married and their marriage is doing quite well -- ha ha ha!

Ron Paul: Corporatism Reason for Bailouts - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg6_QVcssgM)Hitler and Mussolini gave their workers state houseing and medical i don't see that in America

[Faldur]

so lemme see he wants to get rid of the department of commerce without even knowing what it does and he wants to also get rid of free education
i think theres a correlation there somewhere

Oh!! Me!! Me!! Me!!! Along with the department of education, department of homeland security, department of energy, funding for planned parenthood and funding for PBS.

No Ooops moment there...

[muh_muh]

you in partuclar are a great example of why the world needs free education instead of the stupidly expensive universities your country has

[Faldur]

you in partuclar are a great example of why the world needs free education instead of the stupidly expensive universities your country has

Why stop at education? Free housing, food, cars and anything else you need. Its worked so well in the past, least some of us have learned from history.

[trish]

Public education got us to the Moon. It was a huge success.

With few exceptions today's private schools do no better the public. The decline of American education correlates with the climb religious home schooling and the burden of more and more mandates from which private schools are exempt; e.g. public schools must accept and meet the special needs of students with every sort of learning disability. This greatly increases the need for teaching, administrative, transportation and other special staff.

Besides these added challenging burdens (fiscal and otherwise) upon municipal schools, schools today are ever threatened with litigious parents. This means playgrounds have to be staffed, the playground equipment has to meet safety standards and be assembled by professional staff. No more parents getting together and making swings and assembling slides for free.

Schools are under continuous threat of suits by parents who think their child's special needs aren't being met, or by parents who think their child's discipline was too harsh. Moreover, schools in poor neighborhoods deal have a schoolbody that's largely transient. New students arriving in the middle of the semester who are somehow expected to catch up do well on the State tests. And yes, there's the bane of no child left behind. Every school is expected to better than it did the year before on the State tests or lose a portion of funding, even if the school performed excellently the year before.

I think Congress should take a test every year on history, law and the constitution and each member should be expected to perform better than they did the year before or else lose a portion of their salary.

Finally thanks to reality tv, fox news, bible thumpers, the war against culture etc. respect for knowledge is in decline in the U.S. The conservative position isn't that private schools can do better than public schools, but rather private schools are good enough, at least no one will be teaching that eeevilussion shit and at least someone will be making a profit.

[fred41]

I believe that the biggest problem with education is disinterested parents. In the poorest neighborhoods schools don't do well because there are often dysfunctional parents, or no parents at all. On top of that there is a pervasive culture of ignorance perpetrated by both peers and the entertainment community. Often private or charter schools do slightly better in these neighborhoods because at the very least, the parents who put their children into these schools care how well their kids do...(not to mention that, at the very, very least there is often a higher level of safety in these schools so that children who want to learn... can do so in a calmer environment).

In the more affluent schools there is often a different type of parental neglect that is just as bad. Parents in a higher income bracket often don't really follow up on their children either...why be a parent?...just give the kids what they want and be their "friends" instead. Sure beats the work it takes to actually nurture a child as opposed to letting everyone else raise your little accoutrement.

I don't really think religion has that much sway in the U.S. regarding education one way or the other...often children from other cultures (sometimes religious cultures) do better simply because their parents follow up on their education, realizing that this is a way to get ahead in life...or at least have a head start.

(I think it's fair to add that my observations in this post aren't based on any statistics I've read...they are just that: my observations)

[onmyknees]

Public education got us to the Moon. It was a huge success.

With few exceptions today's private schools do no better the public. The decline of American education correlates with the climb religious home schooling and the burden of more and more mandates from which private schools are exempt; e.g. public schools must accept and meet the special needs of students with every sort of learning disability. This greatly increases the need for teaching, administrative, transportation and other special staff.

Besides these added challenging burdens (fiscal and otherwise) upon municipal schools, schools today are ever threatened with litigious parents. This means playgrounds have to be staffed, the playground equipment has to meet safety standards and be assembled by professional staff. No more parents getting together and making swings and assembling slides for free.

Schools are under continuous threat of suits by parents who think their child's special needs aren't being met, or by parents who think their child's discipline was too harsh. Moreover, schools in poor neighborhoods deal have a schoolbody that's largely transient. New students arriving in the middle of the semester who are somehow expected to catch up do well on the State tests. And yes, there's the bane of no child left behind. Every school is expected to better than it did the year before on the State tests or lose a portion of funding, even if the school performed excellently the year before.

I think Congress should take a test every year on history, law and the constitution and each member should be expected to perform better than they did the year before or else lose a portion of their salary.

Finally thanks to reality tv, fox news, bible thumpers, the war against culture etc. respect for knowledge is in decline in the U.S. The conservative position isn't that private schools can do better than public schools, but rather private schools are good enough, at least no one will be teaching that eeevilussion shit and at least someone will be making a profit.


With few exceptions today's private schools do no better the public. The decline of American education correlates with the climb religious home schooling and the burden of more and more mandates from which private schools are exempt; e.g. public schools must accept and meet the special needs of students with every sort of learning disability. This greatly increases the need for teaching, administrative, transportation and other special staff.

Ok...some clarification please. When you say private schools are no better than public, what are you using as benchmarks...test scores? college admissions? Parental satisfaction? According to the National Report Card, math and science scores thru 2009 were higher in private schools. There is no doubt obvious reasons for that, but the data is what the data is. I'm not an educator, but...can you tell us what you're basing your statements on? Besides the data, it seems counter intuitive. Why would parents take extra jobs to pay for private schools, if the neighborhood school was providing the same level of education? I would grant you that in some areas of higher income, that may be the case...but nationwide? And why does my heart break watching those Charter School lotteries and the despondent kids and parents who don't get selected if their neighborhood schools were operating at an acceptable level? I'm not bashing public education....I'm a product of it, (k-8 ) but some things you've stated need clarification. There are reasons we rank so poorly against other countries, and I understand the burden public education has, but in many cases they're not getting the job done, and they need to improve...but to associate it with home schooling raises questions. Additionally can you provide some data on the connection between home schooling and decline of public education? I understand your problem with religion, but what's the correlation?

[Dino Velvet]

I went to Catholic School from K-12. If I had kids I'd put them there too so they turn out like daddy.

[trish]

The raw data suggests the Sun revolves around the Earth. A proper treatment of the raw data suggests otherwise.

Charter schools are not mandated to accept students with learning disabilities and don’t accept them in the proportions that public schools do. Charter schools deal with students who parents care enough to think about and pay some extra bucks for the education of their children. Parental attitude is often reflected in the attitude of the students.

Adjusted for these considerations private schools do no better than public schools. Both perform unsatisfactorily on international comparisons. Both (if international comparisons are fair) seem to be failing our students. Given that conclusion, the[n] one may surmise the fault might lie elsewhere. One factor to which I point the finger is the general decline of cultural and intellectual values in the U.S.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html

[Stavros]

I don't understand much of this debate, so I can't comment on the specifics of the US school system. Fred is right about motivation from parents, be it one or two, I think that is fundamental to a childs progress, but so too are resources, be it family or system based.

We have the problem here of having different education systems in England and Wales, and in Scotland, with a slight variation in Northern Ireland. What has developed over the last 20 or so years are so-called Faith Schools -I dont know if it exists in the US but it segregates children according to religion -after partition in 1921 it was something the Roman Catholic church fought for in Northern Ireland and is allegedly part of the sad legacy of bigotry that province suffered from for years; a legacy to which the Protestants made an equally dismal contribution. The Jewish Free School in London for years had an outstanding reputation, but other more orthodox Jewish schools and not a few Muslim schools are not so well-regarded, some are under investigation -but in France all state schools are secular.

My view is that there should be one education system for all, that dividing up students can only make sense with special needs pupils, that no other forms of segregation should be tolerated. But that the system should be properly funded, and students given an equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, education was hijacked by conservatives decades ago and all they have done is skim off the best resources mostly for their own children, and left the remaining fragments for rest to fight over.

[Ben]

Chris Hedges talks about a free form of capitalism.... And its obvious and clear threats.... (Again, we live in a semi-market system 'cause the state plays a substantial role/part in the overall economy. But, of course, the banking sector approximated free market conditions.)

Unfettered Capitalism - Chris Hedges & Michael Moore - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWBv5je0_ns)

[giovanni_hotel]

A billionaire's take on the BIG LIE we're being fed by the 'supply side' economy advocates.
THe Great American experiment is crumbling at its foundations.
Better late than never.

Once again, the people who should be running for POTUS avoid politics like a venereal disease.

Nick Hanauer - Raise Taxes on The Rich to Reward True Job Creators.MP4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTeTxrcwtNM)

Same guy appeared as a guest on Fox News, and surprise(!!) they barely let him string two sentences together.

Millionaire Nick Hanauer and Fox News Neil Cavuto - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=madU172f6zI&feature=related)

[Ben]

A billionaire's take on the BIG LIE we're being fed by the 'supply side' economy advocates.
THe Great American experiment is crumbling at its foundations.
Better late than never.

Once again, the people who should be running for POTUS avoid politics like a venereal disease.

Nick Hanauer - Raise Taxes on The Rich to Reward True Job Creators.MP4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTeTxrcwtNM)

Same guy appeared as a guest on Fox News, and surprise(!!) they barely let him string two sentences together.

Millionaire Nick Hanauer and Fox News Neil Cavuto - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=madU172f6zI&feature=related)


The economist Jeffrey Sachs should've been part of the Obama team. But, sadly, Obama is too tight with the criminal and unethical Wall Street crowd:

A Plan to Fix Our Elections - Jeffrey Sachs - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzjNE0seJKw)

Jeffrey Sachs on the Power of Solar Energy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4WDeJve804)

Jeffrey Sachs On Lobbies - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnNrIbwsvak)

[giovanni_hotel]

Mr. Sachs pimp slaps Obama on MSNBC nearly every chance he gets.
I'm still moved by the historical context of BHO's presidential election, but in many ways he's been an underwhelming POTUS.

Not because of his ability but his personal inclination.

Too status quo, not radical enough.

Come on Barack, you're the first Black man in the WH. If any President was given a blank check to be a game changer for the entire system, it was you.

Unfortunately I think in some ways Obama is sliiiiightly right of Clinton. Too content to get along by going along IMO.

[Faldur]

If any President was given a blank check

Believe me he is making damn good use of his "blank check". I will take 4 generations of Americans to pay off his credit card tab.

3 years of operating the country and still we have no budget? Yup, thats a blank check.

[trish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html

[Faldur]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-36Kez1Qxm2k/TW18ADyH7MI/AAAAAAAACU0/RcQ_x6Z691Y/s1600/Dont_Worry_Be_Happy.jpg

[trish]

Ahhh yes, G.H.W.Bush's 1988 theme song.
The fact is, there's plenty of time to worry about the deficit. It's a matter of priorities.

[Faldur]

I know its Bush's fault, we all read the memo. Somehow your list of priorities just doesn't offer me comfort..

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k8HWlig5XLQ/Tj1R_WD0lHI/AAAAAAAAKCA/Gta5wiQvJHk/s1600/obama-fiddles-as-socialism-burns.jpg

[trish]

You're the one who sang Bush's theme song, not me :)

[Faldur]

US Treasury announced its 2011 financial closing, $15.22 trillion in debt. Thats 100.3% Debt/GDP ratio. Think we need to redefine our "priorities".

[giovanni_hotel]

You can't worry about shrinking the deficit when unemployment is 9%.
Get people jobs, then worry about cutting government spending.

[trish]

US Treasury announced its 2011 financial closing, $15.22 trillion in debt. Thats 100.3% Debt/GDP ratio. Think we need to redefine our "priorities".Finally. Yes. We need to forget this deficit shit for now and get people working. Austerity programs at this point in time will just send us right back into recession, increase the deficit and lose more jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/op...ands-debt.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html)

[Faldur]

This is where our fundemental differences come into play. I do not believe government can create jobs. Only the private sector can create productive, tax paying jobs. This whole "shovel ready" line of BS has been shown not to work. Again IMHO, you want to create jobs get government to start showing some fiscal responsibility such as.. oh lets see.. a budget? Show the private sector a responsible government and you will see job creation.

[trish]

I do not believe government can create jobs.How many postal workers are there? How many public teachers are there? How many construction workers built and maintain State and Federal Highways? How many damns, were designed and built by State and Federal government? How many soldiers are there? How many firemen? How many State police? Municipal police? How safe would you feel without them? It's not a matter of belief. It's a fact that government directly hires people for hundreds of thousands of jobs and contracts with private industry thereby creating millions more. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact that austerity measures have never ever worked to create jobs and lift a nation out of a depression. It not a mysterious fact either. It's easily explained: with austerity, there's no increase in demand...no demand, no increase in production...no increase in production, no new jobs. Econ101, the economy runs on demand.

[russtafa]

hey who is leading in the polls? in Australia our version of the democrats[labor] are dragging their sorry asses in the polls they might not come back for twenty years .who's leading in the States ?

[Faldur]

How many postal workers are there?

Too many, what shows up in your mail box? Everything I get goes directly in the recycle bin. Were loosing $5 billion every year just to receive junk mail and advertisements. Privatize and actually create revenue to the treasury.


How many public teachers are there?

This is a state responsibility, abolish the department of education.


How many construction workers built and maintain State and Federal Highways?

Oh, you mean the ones with 1 guy working and 4 watching? One of the biggest waste of monies we have. Block grant the funds, turn it over to the states, and restrict it to the private sector.


How many damns, were designed and built by State and Federal government?

How many damns were designed and built in the last 15 years?


How many soldiers are there?

Responsibility of the Feds, God bless the men and women who are brave enough to serve.


How many firemen? How many State police? Municipal police? How safe would you feel without them?

Responsibility of the state, its why we pay property taxes.

There is no reason for the federal government to spend money at the levels they are currently doing. Any further deficit spending would be foolish. We could easily return the level of spending to that of 2007 and there would be no difference. You really mean to tell me the funding levels 4 years ago were so lacking? Were people starving? Were SSI checks bouncing? Return to 2007 levels of spending and we have a balanced budget. Even in this depressed economy.

Its so damn ridiculous to think that we "must" continue giving money away like we are. Anything government does, it does extremely poorly. Hello Solyndra? The US Postal service is a perfect example, it is no longer needed. Privatize the deliveries that are still required and lets start getting some tax revenue for our money spent.

Again, fundamental difference of opinions. Liberals want the federal government to be the Nanny of all. Conservatives want the government to operate within its means, and only help those who are really in need of help. 1 in 7 Americans really need food stamps? 3 years of unemployment compensation? Really?

[muh_muh]

Too many, what shows up in your mail box? Everything I get goes directly in the recycle bin. Were loosing $5 billion every year just to receive junk mail and advertisements.

so youre against private industry doing their job?

[Faldur]

so youre against private industry doing their job?

No, they are using the best legal system available to them. But why should the taxpayers continue to subsidize this system? $5.1 billion dollars last year. If the private sector were doing the job of the US Postal service 574,000 jobs would begin to pay taxes to the treasury, rather than draining.

The delivery cost would go up, but it would be the option of the consumer if they want to pay for it. And the government would save $5 billion along with receiving tax revenues from the delivery employees. A win/win in my book.

[Ben]

How many postal workers are there? How many public teachers are there? How many construction workers built and maintain State and Federal Highways? How many damns, were designed and built by State and Federal government? How many soldiers are there? How many firemen? How many State police? Municipal police? How safe would you feel without them? It's not a matter of belief. It's a fact that government directly hires people for hundreds of thousands of jobs and contracts with private industry thereby creating millions more. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact that austerity measures have never ever worked to create jobs and lift a nation out of a depression. It not a mysterious fact either. It's easily explained: with austerity, there's no increase in demand...no demand, no increase in production...no increase in production, no new jobs. Econ101, the economy runs on demand.

Trish is right.
And, too, where does all that Pentagon spending go??? What about soldiers? Don't they live off the public dime. Aren't they government workers, employed by the government???
And, too, how many people would actually support a private police force? Private fire department? And how would a private police force work? And, too, as Trish points out about roads: who will build them? I mean, why would, say, Microsoft build roads in, say, Conway, Arkansas??? How does that maximize their return on investment?????? Why would Coca-Cola build a bridge in, say, Wilson County, Tennessee.... How does that improve their net income????

[muh_muh]

No, they are using the best legal system available to them. But why should the taxpayers continue to subsidize this system? $5.1 billion dollars last year. If the private sector were doing the job of the US Postal service 574,000 jobs would begin to pay taxes to the treasury, rather than draining.

The delivery cost would go up, but it would be the option of the consumer if they want to pay for it. And the government would save $5 billion along with receiving tax revenues from the delivery employees. A win/win in my book.

entirely missed the point there well done

so youre against private undustry advertising? isnt it your duty as a good capitalist to not through away the ads but instead study them and buy their stuff?

[fred41]

Trish is right.
And, too, how many people would actually support a private police force? Private fire department? And how would a private police force work? And, too, as Trish points out about roads: who will build them? I mean, why would, say, Microsoft build roads in, say, Conway, Arkansas??? How does that maximize their return on investment?????? Why would Coca-Cola build a bridge in, say, Wilson County, Tennessee.... How does that improve their net income????

...as was pointed out before, most of these particular jobs are handled by state or local taxes...not the federal government (though some of them are federally subsidized).


entirely missed the point there well done

so youre against private undustry advertising? isnt it your duty as a good capitalist to not through away the ads but instead study them and buy their stuff?

Private industry can advertise any legally available way they want. I suppose if there were no government mail service they would probably hire someone to deliver the ads to your house (which they do anyway with newspaper inserts and throwaways). However..the internet is slowly making much of this unnecessary.
I don't believe any point was missed since capitalists don't have a "duty" to buy anything.

...but he can speak for himself...I just happened to come across it.

[trish]

Too many, what shows up in your mail box? Everything I get goes directly in the recycle bin. Were loosing $5 billion every year just to receive junk mail and advertisements. Privatize and actually create revenue to the treasury.
Private business market via the mail system because it's effective. Otherwise they would pay to have those high gloss catalogs and flyers delivered. The rate for business is the cheapest; i.e. private business rely on government subsidy through mail delivery. If you think every small town has a newpaper that will deliver those flyers, think again, this isn't the 1970's anymore. Newspapers are a thing of the past. But people do order goods from businesses overline all the time. Businesses do business with businesses overline and depend on overland services to deliver the goods. But Fed Ex and other private delivery services to not deliver in every town in the U.S. Not even close. Fed Ex and others often drop their packages in the mail to complete the last leg of the trip. The Post Office could demand more to deliver a package and make a profit, but WE are the government. That would be like charging yourself to drive yourself to work in the morning. The Post Office provides a needed service, it is not a for profit business.

Soldiers are...
Responsibility of the Feds, God bless the men and women who are brave enough to serve. Agreed. And it is a government job, that deservedly is rewarded with a government pension and benefits.

Policemen are...
Responsibility of the state, its why we pay property taxes.

There is no reason for the federal government to spend money at the levels they are currently doing. Texas disagrees. They want more federal money to support State policing of the border. Let's say your right though, that we could return to 2007 levels of Federal spending on local police. That doesn't prove your original thesis that government can't and doesn't create jobs. The fact is, State and local police need some amount of Federal dollars to effectively do their jobs.

How many constructins workers are required....
Oh, you mean the ones with 1 guy working and 4 watching? One of the biggest waste of monies we have. Block grant the funds, turn it over to the states, and restrict it to the private sector. That's just mean spirited bullshit and I wager any one of those workers does more work in a day than you do in a year. Bridges are falling down all over the country because we aren't paying to maintain them. Damns are being neglected. Remember New Orleans? The electrical grid requires restructuring. The maintaining and updating infrastructure is the most important we can do to advance our nation, our economy and stay ahead of the competition.


Its so damn ridiculous to think that we "must" continue giving money away like we are.Spending money to advance your own infrastructure is not throwing money away. It is growing the nation and the economy. Austerity is stagnation, falling behind and preferring to live in the past.


Again, fundamental difference of opinions. Liberals want the federal government to be the Nanny of all. Conservatives want the government to operate within its means,This is just a stupid and false cartoon characterization of two political philosophies. But the fact is that a growing, economically sound nation, like any large corporation, will always pay ahead for reasonably certain future returns. Those that don't die away.

To sum up, you claimed back on page 6 that
I do not believe government can create jobs.. I then pointed out all the ways that government can and does create jobs. Your recent post does nothing to refute this demonstration. Instead your position has mutated. It's not that you believe that government can create jobs. You concede that it can. Rather, it would seem, that you and the GOP believes that government shouldn't create jobs and that you and the GOP are more than willing to see people go without than compromise that principle.

[Faldur]

They want more federal money to support State policing of the border.

Border security should fall under the federal governments responsibility. Its part of the nations defense.


Let's say your right though, that we could return to 2007 levels of Federal spending on local police.

The federal government has no business spending tax monies on state police/fire.


thats just mean spirited bullshit and I wager any one of those workers does more work in a day than you do in a year.

I have been in the construction industry for over 35 years, 20 years of which I have been an employer in the industry. I know production, organization and sweetie what you see in government road work is none of the above.


Bridges are falling down all over the country because we aren't paying to maintain them.

Ok, I have to admit you made me laugh like hell with that one. Can you name ONE bridge that has fallen down due to lack of maintenance in the last 10 years? The last 30 years? How about the last 100 years? It has never happened..

[trish]

So why are you so interested in what is State and what is Federal responsibility? Your original contention makes no such distinction. You merely claimed government cannot create jobs. You were wrong. You simply believe government shouldn't create jobs. It seems you would rather make fun of people who do real work, then see government help put more people to work.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0803/p01s05-usgn.html

[giovanni_hotel]

No, they are using the best legal system available to them. But why should the taxpayers continue to subsidize this system? $5.1 billion dollars last year. If the private sector were doing the job of the US Postal service 574,000 jobs would begin to pay taxes to the treasury, rather than draining.

The delivery cost would go up, but it would be the option of the consumer if they want to pay for it. And the government would save $5 billion along with receiving tax revenues from the delivery employees. A win/win in my book.

The USPS is NOT funded by the Federal government. They are a self sustaining federal business that funds itself with its own revenue.

Tell me why is it that conservatives wrote and passed legislation in 2006 that required the USPS to fund 75 years of retirement/pension liabilities in TEN years????
That means the USPS is required to pay out liabilities to employees who haven't been hired yet.:yayo:


No federal or private corporation is under such restrictions.
The goal in passing this legislation was clear; to destroy the USPS.

The fucked up part is the majority of Americans are not even aware of this law because of the spin in the media that the USPS is out of step with a technological shift in how mail is sent, and a slew of private competitors who are more efficient.


The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006(PAEA) is responsible for 100 percent of the $20 billion in debt the USPS now faces.

Why is the Fed's most successful business being forced by a deliberate legislative gambit to go bankrupt???

Why is it that conservatives hate of anything associated with the federal government, primarily its most successful programs, are targeted by right wingers for destruction??

This is why I always repeat the refrain, it is SUICIDE for this country to put those individuals who most HATE the Federal government, in charge of it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself/

[Faldur]

The USPS is NOT funded by the Federal government. They are a self sustaining federal business that funds itself with its own revenue.

Oh, that makes me feel a lot better. But tell me, with a 2011 net revenue of
-$5.1 billion where does the money come from? Do they have a savings account they withdraw it from?

[giovanni_hotel]

The postal service believe it or not actually makes money from selling stamps, shipping fees and mailbox rentals.

[Ben]

A sane form of capitalism:

Caller: It's Not The Billionaires - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl1KvUmzIJk)

[fivekatz]

Certainly at this point US capitalists could not live without their corporate welfare, whether it be in the form of radical overpayment of such things a pharmaceuticals, military products, privatitzation with unholy mark up (prisons) and the final insurance for unfettered greed fueled by blatant risk (CDO's).

This is to say nothing of the massive military the government maintains to insure that any region or nation that threatens to nationalize the US capitalists interests, that our military will step in and protect American (business) interests).

The nuisance fines the capitalists pay for fraud, poisioning the environment and violations of the laws of the land and those of higher authority are just considered business costs.

For all their whining Jamie Dimon, Donald Trump and the rest of the one percent would be up poop creek without the safety net that is government. They just resent the distraction that having a safety net for the poor and elderly presents to the primary mission of watching out for their assess.

[Ben]

Certainly at this point US capitalists could not live without their corporate welfare, whether it be in the form of radical overpayment of such things a pharmaceuticals, military products, privatitzation with unholy mark up (prisons) and the final insurance for unfettered greed fueled by blatant risk (CDO's).

This is to say nothing of the massive military the government maintains to insure that any region or nation that threatens to nationalize the US capitalists interests, that our military will step in and protect American (business) interests).

The nuisance fines the capitalists pay for fraud, poisioning the environment and violations of the laws of the land and those of higher authority are just considered business costs.

For all their whining Jamie Dimon, Donald Trump and the rest of the one percent would be up poop creek without the safety net that is government. They just resent the distraction that having a safety net for the poor and elderly presents to the primary mission of watching out for their assess.

Yeah, the likes of Trump and others love big government -- for themselves. Not for, say, the elderly widow down the street. Ya know, she should be subject to market discipline. (We should also note that something like copyright is government intervention in the market. Actually, corporations themselves are government creations.
Anyway, corporations have captured government and are using it to serve their parochial interests.
The corporate sector loathes something like social democracy. Which MEANS: working people taking control of the state to serve their interests. Meaning they'd institute policies that serve them. That'd be a proper/functioning/meaningful democracy. I mean, we certainly have elections but do we have actual democracy? No. Of course not.)

[Ben]

Why the free market fundamentalists think 2013 will be the best year ever

As communists once did, today's capitalists blame any failures on their system being 'impurely' applied:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/free-market-fundamentalists-think-2013-best

[Ben]

Markets Make Us Less Moral

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQSX4Tb-pJE

[Ben]

Capitalism Kills Morality - And So Does Socialism, Say Economists:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/capitalism_kills_morality_and_so_does_socialism_sa y_economists-111691

[joeninety]

And how would a private police force work?

Are you serious....... then who were those guys that were beating up the occupy wall street movement, because they sure as hell weren't serving nor protecting the public.......From my seat I could have sworn they were serving the interests of private corporations.

I think you'll find somewhere in the con that the private police force is actually working fine.

Here are some more of them, these ones are a bit more blatant though

http://www.knowthelies.com/node/4586

[joeninety]

Why the free market fundamentalists think 2013 will be the best year ever

As communists once did, today's capitalists blame any failures on their system being 'impurely' applied:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/free-market-fundamentalists-think-2013-best

Come on lets just be honest capitalism as a vehicle for fairness and prosperity was never going to work for the masses, how could it ever have, when at its core its based around making profits.

On the other hand if you are part of the elitist sect and no doubt the true masterminds behind current capitalism, then in fact its been the perfect system, but now it has truly served its purpose, so look in awe and wonderment at next vehicle slowly rolling out before your eyes.

Oh wait I forgot sheeple are blind:geek:

[Ben]

Are you serious....... then who were those guys that were beating up the occupy wall street movement, because they sure as hell weren't serving nor protecting the public.......From my seat I could have sworn they were serving the interests of private corporations.

I think you'll find somewhere in the con that the private police force is actually working fine.

Here are some more of them, these ones are a bit more blatant though

http://www.knowthelies.com/node/4586

I should underscore: a completely private police force -- :)
I mean, at present, we don't have a fully private police force. Police are public. Paid by our tax dollars.
In a complete capitalist state -- meaning: no government intervention -- they'd be serving the interest of capital. (Yes! We can debate as to whether or not cops simply serve the interests of corporate capital -- :)) They'd be hired by private companies. And whoever has the money would get the protection. Much like a private firefighting force, as it were.
And, too, cities, I think, would fall into disarray if cops and firefighters were fully private.
Fact is: corporations want a powerful state -- to serve their interests. And want to [and are legally obligated to] externalize costs. We see it all the time: with pollution, with a public police force, with public roads, public education.
Corporations externalize costs -- and internalize profits. And it's rational. Fully rational.
I mean, a company must maximize their own income. So, it's sensible to get others -- meaning: the public -- to pay for a police force to protect their property, their interests.

[hippifried]

In a complete capitalist state -- meaning: no government intervention -- they'd be serving the interest of capital.
Rewriting the dictionary again? Capitalism is just a method of pooling resources. It's privatized socialism, with a limited membership & narrowed scope. All governments, from the purest democracies to the most autocratic dictatorships or monarchies, exist for pooling resources. We are bred as social critters in order to pool resources. Even Neanderthal had a system of leaders & followers. Animals pack or herd up. Capitalism needs government intervention. It's all borrowed money. Guess who controls the currencies that make it all possible.

[joeninety]

I should underscore: a completely private police force -- :)
I mean, at present, we don't have a fully private police force. Police are public. Paid by our tax dollars.
In a complete capitalist state -- meaning: no government intervention -- they'd be serving the interest of capital. (Yes! We can debate as to whether or not cops simply serve the interests of corporate capital -- :)) They'd be hired by private companies. And whoever has the money would get the protection. Much like a private firefighting force, as it were.
And, too, cities, I think, would fall into disarray if cops and firefighters were fully private.
Fact is: corporations want a powerful state -- to serve their interests. And want to [and are legally obligated to] externalize costs. We see it all the time: with pollution, with a public police force, with public roads, public education.
Corporations externalize costs -- and internalize profits. And it's rational. Fully rational.
I mean, a company must maximize their own income. So, it's sensible to get others -- meaning: the public -- to pay for a police force to protect their property, their interests.

I would love to let you off as I think you are cool:)

But I think you have missed the point of the con being played out, I agree the police and judiciary system is funded by the public purse, and I agree that they are meant to be public servants, but when push comes to shove they hold the private corporations in higher regard than mere public individuals.

Take a look around banksters commit all types of fraud and are never brought to book unless they fall out of favour with those in the top echelon, Joe public protests against this corruption peacefully, as is his supposed right and in return he/she are assaulted, arrested, processed and convicted.

Due process was in effect carried out by a private force and judiciary system (which masquerades as a public entity) and to add insult to injury the clever bastards use the public purse to fund it.

Public money goes in, the supposed elected elite (who are lent on or part of private corp land) decide how money is spent, what policies to go with blah blah, they then instruct the public masked private entity and it acts out their wishes (not the publics) according to what has been instructed.

How many times have individuals been elected into office by the public, promising to carry out their wishes, only to renege and do the opposite and actually show support to the private sect, yet time and time again people fall for the con of democracy and all of this is getting worse, see the illusion for what it is.

[joeninety]

Capitalism needs government intervention. It's all borrowed money.

It needs it to an extent but too much intervention can have a negative impact especially when corruption spreads its seeds.

Minimal interference from the goverment is best, you only have to look at Hong Kong to see the proof.

[TSBootyLondon]

[My English is appalling tonight (Sorry)! time for bed I think... Night all xx)

Joe I can't take anything that you say in as I am to busy thinking dirty thoughts about the man in your profile picture! lol.... A man who has sucessfully given the name Nigel seX appeal!
Sorry back to your discussion...... :ignore:

I often wonder what life would be without government, we all moan about this party or that party... I think that they have it spot on in Australia... I like their process where by if a politician promised something and fails to deliver, the people do not have to wait for the next election, they have the option to call for a vote at any time and there have been cases where seats have been lost! Keeps them on their toes hey!

x Bella



It needs it to an extent but too much intervention can have a negative impact especially when corruption spreads its seeds.

Minimal interference from the goverment is best, you only have to look at Hong Kong to see the proof.

[joeninety]

[My English is appalling tonight (Sorry)! time for bed I think... Night all xx)

Joe I can't take anything that you say in as I am to busy thinking dirty thoughts about the man in your profile picture! lol.... A man who has sucessfully given the name Nigel seX appeal!
Sorry back to your discussion...... :ignore:

I often wonder what life would be without government, we all moan about this party or that party... I think that they have it spot on in Australia... I like their process where by if a politician promised something and fails to deliver, the people do not have to wait for the next election, they have the option to call for a vote at any time and there have been cases where seats have been lost! Keeps them on their toes hey!

x Bella

Hmmm so my avatar is making you have dirty thoughts hey, shame I am not sharing that bed of yours as I would show you that my avatar hasn't got anything on the real me:tongue:

I like what you have to say about the Australian system its a good idea, I did not know that is how it works, seems you really do learn something new everyday:)

Glad to see you and Katherine made up on that other thread, nice to see an amicable end to the dispute:)

[Ben]

The Myth of the "Free Market"

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/19437-the-myth-of-the-qfree-marketq

[Ben]

The Myth of Capitalism with Michael Parenti:

Dr. Michael Parenti: The 1% Pathology And The Myth of Capitalism - 10/19/2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKyX7GNHYkQ)

[Ben]

Does Studying Economics Breed Greed?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-grant/does-studying-economics-b_b_4141384.html

[Ben]

Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pope-francis-denounces-trickle-down-economic-theories-in-critique-of-inequality/2013/11/26/e17ffe4e-56b6-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

[Ben]

The Pope is at it again:

Pope Francis Attacks High CEO Salaries:

http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-francis-attacks-high-ceo-salaries-first-message-being-named-person-year-1506958

[Ben]

Imagine A World Without Government - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWDg54fLMSE)

[Ben]

Savage capitalism is back – and it will not tame itself:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/savage-capitalism-back-radical-challenge

[Ben]

Why doesn't the government just get out of the way and let the private sector -- the "real revolutionaries" -- innovate? It's rhetoric you hear everywhere, and Mariana Mazzucato wants to dispel it. In an energetic talk, she shows how the state -- which many see as a slow, hunkering behemoth -- is really one of our most exciting risk-takers and market-shapers.

Mariana Mazzucato: Government -- investor, risk-taker, innovator - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r1IPsldbBg)

[Ben]

Could Islamic finance save capitalism?
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/dec/04/could-islamic-finance-solution-capitalism