Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
64. Nothing wrong with it inherently. The devil is in the details.
Thu Nov 19, 2015, 09:30 AM
Nov 2015

The idea of business and capitalism is not inherently bad. But only if they are placed within the context of their overall impact.

It obviously gets very complicated. Since it is the basis of our economy and society, it can only work if there is a balance between self-interest and the public interest. But in addition to its benefits, Capitalism contains elements of abusiveness and is contrary to the idea of the public good and democracy.

It ultimately boils down to morals, ethics and priorities. Those are required to restrain the negative aspects of business, so that capitalism can work for everyone, rather than hurt everyone to benefit a few. When that is not self imposed, it has to be imposed by the rules of society.


There is also a dangerous dynamic within any institution or system. Wealth and power feed on themselves. The more power and wealth an institution or individual gains, the more ability they have to increase that geometrically. An example. Wal Mart. The more resources they have, the better able they are to move into a town, lose money on a store for a while to undercut existing competitors and drive them out of business to create a captive market. It also gives them more power to squeeze their suppliers and workers.

Since around 1980, the equation has shifted from a balance of those factors has shifted to the "Greed is Good" mentality. We allowed the negative aspects of capitalism to completely overshadow morals and ethics. There are endless examples, and it has been the death by a thousand cuts. We allowed a few corporations to become monopolistic empires. And Wall St. has changed the goal from a reasonable return on investment to a constant "quick killing" by screwing workers and consumers.

And individuals who step into the "lucky lane" will do awful things to their neighbors in order to gain obscene wealth. Whjere once a CEO might have been satisfied to earn 5 times the wages of average employees, it is not the goal to earn 50 times or more, with wealth in the Billions, while their employees just eke by.

It has degenerated to the point where corporate behavior that would have been considered totally unacceptable a few decades ago has become commonplace.

We have allowed Corporate America and Wall Street to do that for too long. The problem can be tracerd to the rise of Reagonimics and Supply Side economics championed by the GOP. But unfortunatly, the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton and the DLC/Third Way (shorthand but you know what I mean) jettisoned liberalism and bought into the same shit. by championing things like "free trade," excessive deregulation, privatization, monopolization and shrinking of the public sector to benefit the oligarchs.

The ONLY way to reverse this larger trend is to acknowledge the problem, take a stand against it and pursue the reforms that will restore a balance by reasserting Liberal/Progressive values and re-establishing regulations that will restore a healthier balance.

That reelates to this primary nonsense because it is not simply a matter of Hillary vs. Bernie. It is a matter of breaking free of the forces and Crony Capitalism that skewed the balance.






Yeah,it's a street in Manhattan that symbolizes wealth and greed. It's just a street. virgogal Nov 2015 #1
"the business model of Wall Street is fraud" Kalidurga Nov 2015 #2
The best answer is here. It's not a simple "fraud" model. It's how the capitalistic world works Sancho Nov 2015 #19
Elizabeth Warren: "We Need To Go Back To Boring Banking" RiverLover Nov 2015 #20
Warren understands economics.... Sancho Nov 2015 #23
Yes, she does. RiverLover Nov 2015 #24
Boom goes the dynamite! Major Hogwash Nov 2015 #31
Thanks Major. You're so right - this is a sorry state of affairs. RiverLover Nov 2015 #33
Noone says it is a "cure" ....But it is part of a cure and why oppose it? Armstead Nov 2015 #27
Because it distracts from the real issues of modern international banking... Sancho Nov 2015 #28
Sometimes simpler is better Armstead Nov 2015 #32
Here you're going to need this... Fearless Nov 2015 #3
It's a movie with "greed is good" as its theme. pacalo Nov 2015 #4
They intentionally issued trillions in bad loans AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #5
Hand them a shovel Hydra Nov 2015 #6
you are stringing together a lot of sentences hill2016 Nov 2015 #9
So sorry you are confused AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #12
We can better understand Bernie Sanders from the bills he supports. Eric J in MN Nov 2015 #7
'I'm doing God's work!' No Lloyd you're hallucinating again. appalachiablue Nov 2015 #8
........ daleanime Nov 2015 #10
nothing which explains hill2016 Nov 2015 #59
There by saving you the effort.... daleanime Nov 2015 #63
Obviously, you know nothing. Fuddnik Nov 2015 #11
BUT, could you rank half of them? I confess Hortensis Nov 2015 #40
I'll explain it to you simply ibegurpard Nov 2015 #13
Well stated. Here's an example of that~ RiverLover Nov 2015 #29
This is a good example of the shadow banking system at work. DanTex Nov 2015 #37
Um, no. RiverLover Nov 2015 #44
The article you posted had nothing to do with OTC derivatives. DanTex Nov 2015 #45
"Property OTC derivatives" RiverLover Nov 2015 #46
Bonds backed by securitized rent payments are not OTC derivatives. DanTex Nov 2015 #47
OMG, you're the one who is misinformed. This is hillarious. RiverLover Nov 2015 #48
"American Homes 4 Rent" has utterly nothing to do with the article you posted. DanTex Nov 2015 #49
I don't even think hill2016 Nov 2015 #58
Sanders voted for Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, it aided in the finanical crisis. Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #60
Anyone who creates no real wealth, but exercises a claim Ron Green Nov 2015 #14
why? hill2016 Nov 2015 #36
Perhaps no crime, and this is the problem. Ron Green Nov 2015 #38
So for example union pension funds Travis_0004 Nov 2015 #42
I'm not talking about people's investments, or the legitimate shares Ron Green Nov 2015 #43
so why hill2016 Nov 2015 #57
I care about how Wall Street speculators Ron Green Nov 2015 #62
Yes, please lecture us about how we don't know what we're talking about - that will win us over. reformist2 Nov 2015 #15
isn't it matter hill2016 Nov 2015 #39
Banks use our deposits to gamble with & we bail them out if they lose at the table. RiverLover Nov 2015 #16
The irony of threads like this.. Kentonio Nov 2015 #17
Michael Lewis has written many good books on it. I suggest the OP read some of them. Electric Monk Nov 2015 #52
ya left out CBOE Agony Nov 2015 #18
these are not hill2016 Nov 2015 #54
It's shorthand. Just like the GOP. Washington. and other symbolic terms Armstead Nov 2015 #21
Good post. Hortensis Nov 2015 #41
okay hill2016 Nov 2015 #53
Nothing wrong with it inherently. The devil is in the details. Armstead Nov 2015 #64
Almost none. As evidenced by the replies to this OP. DanTex Nov 2015 #22
Naw it doesn't matter Armstead Nov 2015 #25
The OP was halfway to Stupidville whatchamacallit Nov 2015 #35
do you have any hill2016 Nov 2015 #51
I vote for no one! leftofcool Nov 2015 #26
What a poorly constructed OP Android3.14 Nov 2015 #30
+1 n/t Hepburn Nov 2015 #34
like I said hill2016 Nov 2015 #50
Are you supporting Clinton? Are you sure? have you checked? Check again. Are you still sure? Scootaloo Nov 2015 #55
huh? hill2016 Nov 2015 #61
Personally I'd always taken it to mean IB + PE Recursion Nov 2015 #56
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»PSA: How many people here...»Reply #64