|
|
Post by will on May 30, 2012 17:13:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on May 30, 2012 19:37:03 GMT -5
eh, commies..ussr...meh. Flaw is too much power concentrated (like in any other extant system). in communism if you don't get the philosopher king you're screwed. Still that system may have developed into something if it were ever allowed to emerge from the perpetual siege state that capitalism subjected it to, thus allowing it to not spend 1/2 its GDP on defense--which leads to bankruptcy, which is how that ended (and capitalism, interestingly is not that far behind.). I'm an anarchist you know, and something like this: flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/iron_fist.html is more my cuppa tea... |
|
|
|
Post by will on May 31, 2012 19:13:55 GMT -5
Yes, I actually know you are an anarchist. A real one and not just some greedy coward who calls herself a libertarian. You probably can quote Emma Goldman, who would have been a thoroughly interesting person to have known. Anyway, here's some more about the concentration of wealth and power and why it is a very bad development. economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/jamie-dimon-and-the-fall-of-nations/ |
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Jun 2, 2012 11:34:52 GMT -5
Yeh, he's right of course...but the problem is that such an evolution is inevitable under capitalism. When you have a system where mere accumulation of wealth is the end-all goal, the pressures applied by operators within that class against constraint in pursuit of their "freedom" to realize that goal are going to be inexorable. And the brand of propaganda that enables their effort becomes, ironically, more appealing as society degrades and transforms.
The end game as I see it is this, and it is a perfect example of "hoisted on their own petard".
In order to eliminate national governments as a check to their power, capitalists are working feverishly to shrink it to an inconsequential state. And since money equals power in a capitalistic society, a powerless-to-regulate gov't is also an impoverished gov't. See where this is going? As increasingly unregulated greed and institutional (corporate) lack of foresight drives investment (speculation) into bubbles sooner or later *global* capitalism will run up against another massive risk crisis of its own making but this time...there will be no wealthy gov't backstop to bail them out. So they will collapse and chaos ensues. Paulson very nearly did this utterly inadvertently with Lehman and it scared the utter bejeezus out of the pigs. But, being pigs, they have quickly forgotten what should have been a learning moment on steroids (for any class *not* inherently sociopathic), and are busily back at the trough, back to their old piggish, myopic ways. The inherent short term focus has always been capitalism's Achilles heel and the only variable is what will be left for society to work with (resource-wise) after it finally all goes down the drain.
I used to think this was a longer term scenario, but after living through and observing the last decade I'm not so sure anymore. I have begun to entertain the possibility that within ten to twenty years or so we may see some genuinely 'global epoch' creating developments...
|
|
trash
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by trash on Jun 2, 2012 12:04:15 GMT -5
Good post Kitkat. I agree completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Jun 3, 2012 12:18:39 GMT -5
The irony, of course, is that once the oligarchy is well and truly established, innovation will be suppressed, and the great stream of income will have been mined out and gone. The great economic generator which created the wealth will be snuffed out, and capital will wither in it's own excess, just like yeast drowning in it's own excrement. The Chinese, the Brazilians, the Indians, the South Africans, somebody, will take over the torch and we will be second raters, like Spain after the armada sank.
Another irony is that what people think of as a free market isn't really a free market. It is an efficient, well regulated market in which both buyer and seller have enough information to make a rational choice. In a fully deregulated market, information will always be radically asymmetric, and somebody will always get screwed. That's going to lead to a whole lot of problems the Ayn-Rand-o-bot morons hadn't dreamed of.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Jun 4, 2012 9:13:45 GMT -5
In a fully deregulated market, information will always be radically asymmetric, and somebody will always get screwed. That's going to lead to a whole lot of problems the Ayn-Rand-o-bot morons hadn't dreamed of. Methinks we're already seeing some of those very problems, eh? |
|
