Capitalism and Corporations.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rickyb, Nov 26, 2014.

  1. rickyb

    rickyb Well-Known Member

    Not a huge fan of Canada or America, but there are things i like about both countries (housing size, weather in the states, dont know what else, government healthcare in Canada, some cultural things).

    I think long term, the economy in america and canada will continue to decline. in america there are currently 40% of the working population earns less than $25,000 (or was it 20k?) and the median wage is $15 which is really sad. wats really driving the wages down is oversea labor which earns less than $1/hr, no regulations so corporations can pollute or dump way more. in addition to automation, immigration, plus ladies deciding to enter the workplace.

    check out richard d wolff, chris hedges, and jeff faux's book the servant economy if you want an idea of where things are headed for the american economy. hedges contends corporations have captured both the democrats (since 92) and republicans.

    i guess the only good news is the simple idea of workers voting within their business how to run it and what htey should earn. aka "cooperatives". and theres probably more complex alternatives beyond capitalism.
  2. burrheadd

    burrheadd Superstar

  3. sailfish

    sailfish Well-Known Member

    If you joined just to post that, I think you're on the wrong website.
  4. rickyb

    rickyb Well-Known Member

    i dont plan on posting here too much. but the chickens are coming home to roost already for america and canada to a lesser extent. the american dream is almost dead. i know UPS has already cut benefits, and that will continue unless people understand whats going on and then get together and do something about it.
  5. smapple

    smapple Member

    So do something about it? btw
    capitalism ≠ corporatism
  6. rickyb

    rickyb Well-Known Member

    theres alot in common with boht of them except giant corporations get a lot of handouts from the government
  7. You've Got Mail

    You've Got Mail Active Member

    Corporatism blossoms from capitalism each and every time.

    The problem is not government, or corporations.

    It's money. Money is the root, government is the trunk, and corporations are branches.
  8. greengrenades

    greengrenades To be the man, you gotta beat the man.

    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  9. Atomic_Smurf

    Atomic_Smurf Well-Known Member

    Billy Madison - Everyone in this Room is Now Dumb…:
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  10. Re-Raise

    Re-Raise Well-Known Member

    First off I don't know who this Rickyb clown is and I couldn't care any less about whatever point he is failing to make here.

    I will take this opportunity to point out my favorite example of Capitalism. Mr Peanut wearing a top hat, monocle and holding a cane while selling other peanuts to be eaten..
  11. smapple

    smapple Member

    Wrong, corporatism comes from anti-capitalism.

    Wrong, money is an inanimate object. Just because people abuse it doesn't mean the inanimate object is the problem i.e. 30K+ vehicular deaths in the US every year doesn't mean cars are the root of the problem/just because the Federal Reserve and Government collude to consolidate power and wealth via inflation does not mean money is the problem. Government, the Federal Reserve, and corporations, however, are run by people, ergo the people are the problem.
  12. You've Got Mail

    You've Got Mail Active Member

    Yeah, people are the problem. My girlfriend and I agree, which is why we've decided not to have children.

  13. smapple

    smapple Member

    Why not cut off your feet to prevent athlete's foot while you're at it?

    EDIT: Not trying to sound snarky, just pointing out have kids if you want to and just raise them right.
  14. rickyb

    rickyb Well-Known Member

    “It is futile to be ‘anti-Fascist’ while attempting to preserve capitalism,” George Orwell wrote. “Fascism after all is only a development of capitalism, and the mildest democracy, so-called, is liable to turn into Fascism.”

    i agree even if money was gone, there would still be something else to bribe people with. alot of the guys i listen are skeptical of people in power positions, and say quite often the power structures are unjustifiable.

    btw, life was terrible for american workers Before the Federal Reserve. actually back then alot of american workers thought that they should be the ones to control their jobs, and decide themselves on how the biz should be run, and what they should pay each other. the republican party had essentially an anti capitalist, pro worker control slogan at one point....ellen brown is pretty knowledgable about the fed.
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2014
  15. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    If the Federal Reserve is so good, then how have we ended up with Corporatism of a scale never seen, even global in it's reach? If the Federal Reserve was intended to prevent this, it would seem it has failed in that mission. I would argue that capitalism can't exist without a centralized bank and a monopoly monetary system also enforced by the State. With no such monopoly people are free in the market ie free market to create their own means of exchange by the power of contract or agreement. Even various means of mutual exchange like cooperatives or other voluntary mutualist means could easily exist in the marketplace. Under the current economic model of so-called capitalism there exists no such open competitive free market and all by color of law are forced into a monopolized cash nexus of which both Crony Capitalism (Corporatism if you will) along with it's partner the State equally benefit. Both serve their own interests in shifting wealth from the working middle, lower and poor class into the hands of the privileged class who controls the gun in the room otherwise known as the police powers.

    It is true that people can and will be bribed as you call it but in a de-centralized society, those who fall to the bribery are (1) limited by the fact that power isn't centralized, thus isolation limits the disease so to speak and (2) it doesn't exist under the authority of the color of law as it does now. People would be more prone to law as someone trying to throw their weight around just as we would laugh at Napoleon if he showed up in any town square and started ordering people around. After laughing, we'd call the guys in the white coats to get him some help.

    Besides, without the State in the first place, how would Corporations achieve the special privileges say limited liability for example that it enjoys now only as a result of the illusion and color of law? States create corporations in the sense of their power. The corporations beg the State for the special privilege that doesn't exist in nature but only by divine decree. Those decrees were once of the King and now are the action of the State. In other words, if there is no State to grant the Corp. Privilege status, who would do so that the people as a whole would recognize as such having that authority?
  16. rickyb

    rickyb Well-Known Member

    i agree we should change the federal reserve. i dont defend the fed, my point again was "life was :censored2:ty for workers in america before the fed". i agree we need to decentralize unjustifable sources of power including government and hierarchical corporations. if u had no corporations, you would still have tyrannical massive businesses. there were monopolies Before the federal reserve. sherman anti trust act was passed in 1890...

    if workers controlled UPS, they would probably vote to pay the CEO less, vote to pay themselves more, vote to take more time off for vacation, etc. problem with it would be they are competing in a capitalist market which is essentially a race to the bottom.
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  18. rickyb

    rickyb Well-Known Member

    i have no idea if there is more government handouts for corporations now than 50 years ago. my guess is YES because corporations are more powerful now than before. but even if u got rid of handouts, you would still have capitalism seeking low paid labor overseas, so america would still decay.

    like i said, if u dont have workers having a say in how the business should be run, then ur more likely to get the obscene inequality, :censored2:ty safety, :censored2:ty rules, and what else that you have under capitalism.
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    There are likely arguments to support both positions as it relates to corp. handouts. What may have changed may be who the privileged industry is. Look at the economy over those 50 years and see what industries were dominate over the various periods and there will be the difference.

    The other difference is the nature of globalism now verses this idea 50 years ago. In the late 50's and 60's, globalism was considered an international communist conspiracy and today it's a market and finance capitalism wet dream. The 19th century Anglo/Fabianist mercantilism, later to become an Anglo American idea, would be so proud to see what their grand and great grandchildren have accomplished towards fulfilling the dreams of their fathers.

    I do find that what seems as bigger and bigger corp. handouts from Washington which are interventions in the marketplace, it seems the growth and size of the debt has a correspondence to it. Seems to me this begs the question, are taxpayers paying the profit not just at the point of sale but also on April 15th as well? Without such intervention by the State, such Corp. hegemony under compulsion of law is impossible. Corp. privilege doesn't exist in any economy in it's natural state but only comes to be when a State grants a Corp. it's status in privilege. Corporations, especially the Big Multi-National kind don't hate big gov't but rather they need it as they would not exist without it.

    I've pretty much concluded in some general sense that this appears to be true and that in what is called political economy, both political narratives love it so and thus have no intent other than to continue on the present course.