HAVE CAPITALIST and NEOLIB IDEAS COMBINED TO BECOME CANCEROUS?

[eniwetok]

There's always been a sociopathic side of corporate behavior... and if you haven't seen the 2003 documentary called The Corporation... it's still a must-see. https://freedocumentaries.org/documentary/the-corporation

But the corporate form only has the options the governing political system allows. It has several routes to break free... by propagandizing the public/politicians... and through courts decisions.

We could always expect the GOP to side with wealth and business but once these forces became organized in the 70's they needed to further mold the GOP base to buy into the rationalizations needed to justify irrational Reagan's policies. It's not that irrationality has built in limits... it tends to feed off itself... and this is what we saw with the continued radicalization of GOP politicians.

But I can't excuse the Dems. They exhibited a certain amount of cowardice in not standing up for the working and middle classes. By the 90's neoliberalism had a strong foothold in the Democratic Party. Deregulation under Clinton went a long way to set the stage for the 2008 Bush Crash. And we could not expect the Bush Junta to effectively monitor those corporations they so trusted.

I had such high hopes for Obama. How could he not set the nation back on a sane course? And yet, as Liz Warren just said on MSNBC the Obama admin did virtually nothing when the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission made its report. Unlike FDR who signed legislation to reform Wall St in 90 days... it took 18 MONTHS to pass the rather weak Dodd Frank. And Obama refused to prosecute a single Wall St perp.

This is not to beat up on Obama... but an ideology. Getting back to the GOP... I can't help but think the underlying pathology has continued to grow... and combined with Trump's psychosis... have we reached the end stage of capitalism... where corporate behavior and the beliefs of the entire GOP have become so disconnected with the real world that to protect profits they'll destroy their host societies... and perhaps the planet?

[Albertoo]

1. Capitalism, like democracy and liberty, can be abused

There is no "end stage of capitalism". Capitalism, like democracy, is the default position.
That it can be perverted (like capitalism into oligarchy) doesn't indict the system.

The Democratic agenda is to make capitalism to work for all (i.e., not leave people aside)

[eniwetok]

2. There is no "one" Democratic Agenda

In a two party system any one of those two parties can contain ideological opposites. After all, aside from the office of the president... all other federal positions are elected within states and states can widely differ.

It's pretty difficult to say Max Baucus and Liz Warren have much in common... even if they're both Dems.

[Albertoo]

3. OK. What I was trying to say is that anticapitalism isn't the Democratic platform

Anticapitalism doesn't work, period. But the current inequality levels or interest groups influence on the media certainly need to be curbed.

[eniwetok]

4. who's talking about "anti-capitalism"?

We spent the last century trying to civilize amoral capitalism so it not be come sociopathic. But that sociopathic side is always waiting to break free. But it can't as long as the political constraints remain firm. Sadly too many neolib Dems have joined with the GOP in giving the corporate form a benefit of the doubt it doesn't deserve.

Are you suggesting that if Obama had nationalized Wall St and prosecuted Wall St perps, it would have been anti-capitalistic? If so I disagree. It would merely have been reestablishing rational controls over the inherently amoral corporate form.

[Albertoo]

8. Then yes, we disagree

First, if "Obama had nationalized Wall St", it would have been obviously anti-capitalistic
The collective ownership of the means of production defines anti-capitalism.

Second, that private ownership has "amoral" tendencies is evident as many private individuals can be selfish. That is where limitations placed by the state should kick in.

Third, about controls,"too big to fail" means that that business should have been broken down under antitrust provisions long before.

[eniwetok]

12. capitalism had destroyed these banks

Capitalism had destroyed these Wall St banks. Why wasn't it "anti-capitalistic" for government to prop them up and bail them out?

There seems to be a hidden assumption in your posts... that even if bankrupted banks remain in private hands... regardless if this is done entirely though government action... then that's still "capitalistic".

It would have been preferable if these banks were "nationalized", restructured, and either closed or re-privatized. If "nationalized" is too loaded a term... then how about receivership?

I have to wonder if the response to the S&L implosion of the 80's was a preferable model compared to how the Bush Crash was handled... there were over a thousand convictions and hundreds of S&Ls were dissolved by the Resolution Trust Corporation.
from: http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/hundreds-of-wall-street-execs-went-to-prison-during-the-last-fraud-fueled-bank-crisis/

William Black: Sure. The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud. In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as “major” by the Department of Justice. But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100 — the 100 worst fraud schemes. They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted. We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.

In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac — which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans — made zero criminal referrals. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals. The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination. And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either].

[Albertoo]

15. There are two common mistakes hidden in your assumptions

-1- that government held companies can efficiently compete. They can't. Never could. They always hit a snag when some lazy exec starts thinking that any mistake will be bailed out.

-2- that the managers of private companies should keep the common good in mind. They don't, can't and won't. They push the limits as far as they can go until retirement without anything falling on their heads. That's why massive failure of big companies is ultimately the fault of politicians, = us, the voters. Government is thee to place strict, strong limits on companies so what they do doesn't have to be cleaned up by the taxpayer.

but anyway, 3/ folks being folks, there will be epic failures over and over again.

We're just great apes, after all

[eniwetok]

17. evasion alert!

Hey, let's deal with YOUR assumptions first... and the key contradiction was that if Obama nationalized the banks, it would be anticapitalistic...

First, if "Obama had nationalized Wall St", it would have been obviously anti-capitalistic The collective ownership of the means of production defines anti-capitalism.

Yet there are certainly more ways to be anticapitalistic than nationalization. CONGRESS'S, OBAMA'S AND THE FED'S ACTIONS WERE ALL ANTI-CAPITALISTIC... yet you seem to be oblivious to your contradiction. If we let the market get it's own way creditors would still be picking over the bones of the giant Wall St banks.

As for this statement Second, that private ownership has "amoral" tendencies is evident as many private individuals can be selfish. That is where limitations placed by the state should kick in.

Again I have to disagree. This is not just about "people". We've structured... though legislation and court decisions, the for-profit corporate form to be amoral... and it can easily become sociopathic depending on market pressures or leadership.

[Albertoo]

21. I fear you do not use words in their commonly accepted sense

Your key contention is that

the key contradiction was that if Obama nationalized the banks, it would be anti-capitalistic...

Well, in the usually sense of the words, nationalizing banks is anti-capitalistic, thus defined:

- capitalism = private ownership of the means of production (including financial services)

- anti-capitalism = public ownership of the means of production

By definition, nationalizations are anti-capitalistic.

[eniwetok]

18. whoa there...

What the hell does this mean:

-2- that the managers of private companies should keep the common good in mind. They don't, can't and won't. They push the limits as far as they can go until retirement without anything falling on their heads. That's why massive failure of big companies is ultimately the fault of politicians, = us, the voters. Government is thee to place strict, strong limits on companies so what they do doesn't have to be cleaned up by the taxpayer.

This seems to be a knot of contradictions. Government is both to blame for the failure of big corporations... yet must be there to limit them so they don't fail.

WTF?

It's easy to spin the false argument that government is responsible for the Bush Crash. After all... all those FDR regulations from the 1930's were, in fact, revoked by politicians. But IT'S WHAT BUSINESS WANTED. Loosening regulations isn't a mandate to become reckless and irresponsible. Wall St and the lenders and the rating agencies CHOSE to be reckless and defraud the public. If they were responsible... there could be NO regulations and they'd behave. The only blame I can find for government is those who voted for this deregulation were fools to trust amoral if not sociopathic capitalism.

[Albertoo]

22. On this point, it seems we're talking at cross purposes

Managers at private companies are not in the business of maximizing society's welfare. They are there to satisfy the best they can their stakeholders, chiefly clients, employees and investors (which might have diverging interests on some issues, but that's not the point here). This is why you and I agree governments should place rules and regulations to ensure companies are not free to do things that could have a net negative effect on th ewhole of society.

Now, you're talking about the Bush crash. It was brought about by the cowardice of politicians who were not willing to tell people with not enough financial prostpects (people who were "subprime&quot that they would not be lent money to. Politicians caved in, and the bubble grew.

Anyway, about your use of the term "sociopathic capitalism", capitalism is like democracy, imperfect to be sure, and the worst of systems to the exception of all others.

[eniwetok]

27. the business of business is...

Managers at private companies are not in the business of maximizing society's welfare. They are there to satisfy the best they can their stakeholders, chiefly clients, employees and investors (which might have diverging interests on some issues, but that's not the point here). This is why you and I agree governments should place rules and regulations to ensure companies are not free to do things that could have a net negative effect on the whole of society.
In theory the purpose of the corporate form is to maximize benefit to their shareholders by satisfying customers. But if that's the purpose... it's largely been imposed on government by the courts which made this semi-official. Of course this raises the issue of whether this means maximizing profits... or stock value... and it's the latter that's led to even more sociopathic behavior as we've seen with Wells Fargo. But if in theory capitalism can be self-regulating... then ANY government interference can be seen as "anticapitalistic"... again in the more accurate use of that term... not your narrow usage that it just includes nationalization. Have you yet admitted that what Congress, Bush & Obama, and the FED did to stabilize the economy was anticapitalistic?


Now, you're talking about the Bush crash. It was brought about by the cowardice of politicians who were not willing to tell people with not enough financial prostpects (people who were "subprime&quot that they would not be lent money to. Politicians caved in, and the bubble grew.

There you go again... blaming politicians and absolving business. That does seem to be a consistent theme with you. Which brings us back to the issue that there's nothing inherent in mere deregulation that mandates irresponsible and reckless behavior for the private sector. Even if government is offering incentives for irresponsible behavior... it's still remains a choice for business. And indeed Bush was pushing his Ownership Society. But the problem was much bigger than any government policy.... everything from lenders not concerned about who they lent money to, to trust in new financial instruments that were to mitigate risk, to ratings agencies willing to put high ratings on shit... to pure greed. No one held a gun to the head of the private sector and demanded they act irresponsibility. Which brings us back to the subject of my thread.... has capitalism combined with neolib political ideology to trust business become cancerous and is destroying the host society and maybe soon the habitability of much of the earth?

[eniwetok]

28. continued

Anyway, about your use of the term "sociopathic capitalism", capitalism is like democracy, imperfect to be sure, and the worst of systems to the exception of all others.

I have no problem with highly regulated capitalism. But some issues need to be addressed.

Does government level the playing field between the power of corporations and labor? Corporations are given many freebies which presumably were to benefit the nation. But these freebies greatly enhance the wealth and political power of those corporations. In saying a corporation must act first to benefit their shareholders creates a conflict with the freebies we give them. If corporations are NOT to benefit the nation as a whole... only shareholders... maybe those freebies can be reexamined.

Labor's right to organize must be protected to offset the power corporations have.

Regardless of whether we do the above or not... we can write corporate charters any way we want. We could rewrite corporate charters to include protection of not just shareholder value... but stakeholder interests... such as the costs to a community of a business relocates. We could reinstitute the corporate death penalty so shareholders would be forced to better police the actions of their corporation... other wise they could suffer losses.

We could reexamine whether corporations deserve free limited liability protections. If they had to buy this as insurance from the private sector then there'd be another level of scrutiny of corporate behavior.

If left to its own... as our own history proves, business will attempt to dump as much of the cost of production onto its host society. Since any socially responsible business will be at an automatic competitive disadvantage if it cleaned up its pollution, provided safe working conditions, made safe food and drug and product... and paid its workers well... only government can force business to bring these costs into the market.. and that could include greenhouse gasses. This is what I meant by our spending a century to civilize amoral and sociopathic capitalism.

Then there's so-called free trade which is really the escape hatch for business to go to nations that relocate to nations that allow corporations to exploit their people and resources.

Last, I think we need more directed production to eliminate inefficiencies... such as Big Pharma that pisses away more on promotion than R&D...

[Albertoo]

29. I would agree with much of what you wrote here

I think most everybody (the staunchest capitalist included) agrees there are to be limits on what companies do.

Where I beg to differ is on you initial statement, i.e. that nationalising companies is not anti-capitalism. I fear it is, and that nothing good ever came from it.

[eniwetok]

30. I never said nationalization was forever...

And maybe that was the wrong term. I perhaps should have used the term receivership or govt takeover. I had, all the time, been thinking of what happened during the S&L implosion... that those who drove the bank into bankruptcy would be removed, criminal acts prosecuted... and the shareholders of these banks would presumably take the loss. After restructuring the bank could again be privatized.

You're still not dealing with your contradiction that government bailing out these banks, preserving the leadership etc isn't the MOST anti-capitalistic of all the available options.

[Albertoo]

36. It's because treating is always more messy than preventing

Once companies (banks) have been allowed to grow "too big to fail", there are no sound (pure) options anymore.

Some of the worst case scenarios are market meltdown (doing nothing) and company meltdown (firing all the senior management)

Injecting funds for shares and selling them later -as Obama did- makes good sense.

[ronnie624]

5. Capitalism is "the default position"?

Why is that? Can you produce some evidence for that assertion?

[Albertoo]

7. Because collective ownership of the means of production doesn't work

And that, this relative inefficiency, is the optimist version.

At worst, collective ownership of the means of production leads to totalitarianism.

[ronnie624]

10. Capitalism's purpose is to enable self-enrichment.

By necessity, that means a majority will not have basics, like adequate access to healthcare and education, which is exactly how it works out.

The ideology that rationalizes capitalism is illogical, because it is at odds with the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, which says unequivocally, that nothing can be created. Since 'wealth' is a direct result of converting and dispersing the stored energy of resources and the available energy of human labor, it simply isn't possible to create it. Believing that you can, is essentially believing in magic.

No system has ever existed, that regards the earth's resources as collectively owned by all. This is what we need to work toward. No other premise can be truly just.

[Albertoo]

11. the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy doesn't apply to economics

That law is true at the scale of the universe (as far as we know) and is closed systems which do not exist in nature (a thermos bottle won't keep drink hot or cold forever)

Production of food, transportation and goods depend on the increasing efficiency with which we make use of energy (sun) or use it (battery efficiency).

The idea the world only holds a limited amount to be shared is that of the Luddites who smashed machinery for fear it would siphon away all the amount of jobs there were.

Luddites have always been wrong. Exactly in the same way that the dream of a collective ownership of the means of the production always ended badly, from Stalin to Venezuela.

The only feasible and important goal is to make sure that no one gets left out, not to level everybody at the same level. If you do not have dreams of becoming Bill Gates or Michael Jordan, people strive less, in sport, business, show business, whatever.

[ronnie624]

16. The Laws of Thermodynamics

apply to the conversion and dispersion of all forms of energy, including those associated with economic activity. It doesn't matter if the energy you are talking about is biological, electrical, mechanical or otherwise, it is all subject to the laws of physics. The claim in your headline is utterly false, and perfectly demonstrates the denialism inherent to capitalist ideology.

The rest of your post is just an expression of confused, mostly false underlying assumptions, that simply cannot withstand scrutiny.

The most obvious assumption to me, is the theocratic belief in a moral imperative to accumulate more than one needs for a secure existence. This is the very definition of greed, which is at odds with practically every religious doctrine on earth, including the Holy Bible. We're taught almost from birth, through parables, that greed is wrong and harmful to society at large, and that "the love of money is the root of all evil". But for some reason, when we discuss the accumulation of wealth through economics, moral strictures and the laws if physics no longer apply. The moral and logical inconsistencies are glaring.

Capitalist ideology teaches people to believe in magic. It's just that simple.

[Albertoo]

20. No, I fear you are just misapplying the laws of thermodynamics

When you mention "the conversion and dispersion of all forms of energy", you simply forget the earth as it now stands is a net recipient of energy (from the Sun)

Therefore you cannot reason about the earth's resources as if the existing quantities of matter and energy were fixed, you have to compute in a steady stream of incoming energy.

Then some of your assertions are bizarre: what does " moral imperative to accumulate more than one needs for a secure existence" mean? How do you define the "needs" of existence? Who decides over that? A central committee? Re-read your assumptions, they do not stand scrutiny.

[ronnie624]

23. The energy that can be used for economic activity,

or exergy, actually decreases rapidly, and cannot be recaptured from the sun's energy faster than we are using it. In the context of a modern, techonologically advanced economic system, it is definitely a closed thermodynamic system.

'Exergy' also refers to energy that derives from many biological sources, not just from hydrocarbons that are used as a source of fuel.

For modern humans, a secure existence would be one in which all of their basic needs are met, like food, clothing, housing and education, with unhindered access to adequate healthcare. People who feel secure, are far less prone to violence, and are more likely to devote their efforts to activities that benefit society.

It isn't really possible to 'misapply' the Laws of Thermodynamics. Just keep firmly in mind, that they apply to every physical occurrence that can be conceived of. If you do that, you'll never be bamboozled by ideological propaganda, that promotes a belief in magic.

[Albertoo]

24. Not sure about your logical steps

-1- yes, the laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere. But you keep reasoning as if the earth was a closed system, which it is not. Re your earlier posts where you implied there was a finite, determined quantity of resources. As I mentioned earlier, this attitude was not taking into account the energy stream from the Sun.

-2- you move on one step further, implicitly granting step 1, but claiming that we would use more resources than the fossil energies + sun radiation. That is also a Luddite reasoning, based on the past only. You do not take into account the remarkable progress in energy conversion of the recent and future solar cells. More energy = more food, more ability to build and maintain better housing for all etc. I see no calculation of this in a global model that would simulate exergy at future solar panel productivity.

-3- about ideology and beliefs, I understand you dislike capitalism. All I'm saying, and it seems to me as remote from magical thinking as can be, is that empirical observation teaches us there has not been any successful example of a mass alternative to capitalism. However, it does seem perfectly desirable to soften the sharp edges of it, most notably by the Social Democrat model in practice in Scandinavian countries.

[ronnie624]

25. Almost all of the energy we use for economic activity

comes from the ecological systems of our biosphere. The oceans, which are the largest, are being rapidly depleated of life, so exergy is quite finite.

Most people enter these discussions with many, many underlying assumptions, that when examined, turn out to be false and unrealistic. It would take FOREVER to unravel them all, especially when the prevailing doctrine depends on not understanding.

See ya.

[The2ndWheel]

32. Basic needs

Those basic needs aren't so basic anymore, and that's why we need so much energy. Housing, the way we understand the term, isn't a basic need. Some form of short term shelter is more of a basic need, but that's not good enough. We need a decent sized full time dwelling that has indoor plumbing and electricity. None of those things are basic.

[eniwetok]

13. how much of what we call capitalism...

How much of what we call capitalism is really the creation of both limited government AND that government putting its thumb down on the scale in favor of capital over labor?

We never seem to discuss the big issues that affect us most... the nature of our government and the corporate form. They are taken as givens not to be questioned. But where would US "capitalism" be if not for the freebies we give to business... from free intellectual property monopolies (patents, copyrights, and trademarks) to free limited liability protection for corporations that protect the private assets of corporate owners in the case of bankruptcy... while often shafting legitimate creditors.

Why isn't this limited liability protection purchased from the private sector as insurance?


Arguably, government didn't bother helping labor until the 1930s.

[librechik]

34. In other words, highly regulated capitalism-which GOP has been viciously tearing apart since 80s

and pretty well got her done. Because greedy stupid people don't remember shit from generation to generation, and it helps if you make sure they don't get educated.

Yay cheap labor conservatives. Fooling people into voting against their own interests since--well this has been going on for centuries.

[tonyt53]

6. Uh, the president doesn't make ANY decision in regards to criminal prosecution, DOJ does that.

[eniwetok]

9. so Obama was powerless?

In March 09 Obama told the Wall Street perps that he was all that stood between them and the people with the pitchforks. This was reported in the book Confidence Men by Ron Suskind.

OF COURSE Obama had the power to push DOJ to prosecute Wall St. You could blame Holder whose philosophy was not to push corporate prosecutions too much because there'd be social costs. But Obama was Holder's boss... and if reforming Wall St was something to be done in the national interest...

This was perhaps Obama's biggest failure as president. Our economy was never really reformed... and 8 years later it's still on life supports from the FED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_Men

[malaise]

14. Does the sun rise in the East?

[Rex]

19. Switzerland is a big capitalist country, yet they find a way to be great socialists too.

The problem is when government and business promise to take care of each other and discard the consumer. You cannot sustain predatory/disaster capitalism forever.

[phallon]

26. No. they just move their HQ's and don't pay enough taxes. Simple fix: vote early and often

What the hell is " neoliberal". Another meaningless term to divide.

[socialist_n_TN]

31. What happens when voting doesn't work for the purpose of ........

curbing the abuses of capitalism. The governmental system is set up to allow on a certain, agreed upon by the ruling class, limited choice and that choice ALWAYS supports capitalism.

And neo-liberal is a worldwide term that is understood by most who use it. Americans seem to have more problems with it than the rest of the world, but if you need a definition that fits an Anglo-American worldview, think of "neo-liberal" as the policies of Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the USA. Reagan called it "trickle down economics". Bush the First called it "voodoo economics".

[phallon]

33. Show me a country with no capitalism

Nothing new that hasn't been trotted out by everyone with high ideals. Ethics and regulations with enforcement is the key. Your idea of civics without capitalism is social Darwinism in control of authoritarians. But you never look at the other side of your neoliberal coin.

Voting always work when people are not convinced by idealists that all institutions are corrupt and exercise their civic responsibility. You cannot lay the ills of sociey at the feet of capitalism. You can lay the fault of failing institutions on people that find generilizations preferable to the hard work of being a citizen.

An institution does not operate in a vacuum unless good people like you, see disruption as a solution over the duty of citizenship.

Check out this on Gary Johnson, http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/here-are-12-ways-gary-johnson-is-a-hardcore-right-wing-radical/
and consider this New Republic article https://newrepublic.com/article/137061/confessions-ross-perot-voter.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Capitalism as a system has no ethics, it has imperatives...........

The only true imperative is to profit. Regulations with enforcement is a society's defense against capitalism in its purest form. Which BTW, IS what's called by most neo-liberalism. That defense is social democracy more or less. But social democracy is always under attack by capitalism because it is a economic and political system that does NOT play well with others.

Gary Johnson and Libertarianism is a capitalist con to peel away support from the soft left over social issues while leaving the economy in control of the capitalists. Good for pot, bad for workers.

[phallon]

37. Agreed