“Democracy and Capitalism are like two persons bound in a tempestuous marriage that is riven by conflict and yet endures because neither partner wishes to separate from the other.”
- Robert Dahl
The economist, Friedrich August von Hayek, once suggested that Democracy can only possibly exist within a Capitalist system of the economy. I’d suggest Mr Hayek is contradicting himself with that statement, because by definition, he is offering no room for choice. Democracy exists for the benefit of Capitalism, or…..for the benefit of Capitalism. That isn’t Democracy.
The contrast between the ideals of a Democratic State and the ideals of Capitalism are in fact, so far removed from each other, they come very very close to being entirely incompatible. That very incompatibility is obvious. It isn’t about immigrants flooding the border, it isn’t about National identity or race, or too much public spending, it isn’t about freedom of choice (the freedom to choose whether to watch X-Factor or Strictly Come Dancing, is a pathetically blinded excuse for the word “Freedom“…you have no real choice), it isn’t about Communism vs Capitalism, all of those points are just a smoke screen employed by politicians who are acquiescing to the needs of big business.
My (perhaps naive understanding of Democracy), is that the key institutions that govern our lives, along with the people who are empowered to make the big decisions that ultimately affect our lives, must be accountable to the people. And yet, this Western ideal of Democracy has the opposite affect. If anything, they seem to be in conflict with each other, sometimes quite violently.
On the one hand, we exercise our right to vote in free and fair elections, by choosing a leader who has very little control over our lives. On the other hand, the key institutions of our society (or what I’d define as key institutions) are further and further privatised; and so power over such institutions is therefore concentrated into little Centralised States of their own, known as “Corporations”, in which the CEO has little or no desire to advance or protect the common good, of Humanity. Similarly, the CEO is not accountable to the people, he/she is accountable to the shareholders only. And since shares (and property – the key to Capitalism – in general) is so very limited, it stands to reason that not everyone can participate in it. Those who do participate in the race for property, lose out, to only one winner. It’s competition, a race to the finish. Those who win “deserve” it. Those who lose, well, tough. The majority therefore, lose out. Which i’m pretty sure anyone will tell you, is massively undemocratic.
In fact, a CEO accountable to share holders, is the exact opposite of Democracy, because the majority, have no say. We are therefore, controlled by Corporate interests, with absolutely no direct accountability to the people. This is ultimately proven to be the case, given that it has taken many many years under Capitalist rule, for the vast majority of workers to be paid a decent wage…..and even then, Business had to be forced, by the Government, to pay a wage greater than just enough to keep the worker alive. The Confederation of British Industry opposed the Minimum Wage. As did the Conservative Party. Which brings me neatly onto my next point.
It is no coincidence that as Markets grow ever more free, political parties become ever more right winged in terms of their economic policies. The Thatcher Government destroyed the power of the Unions in the ’80s, and privatised key institutions such as British Gas with the Gas Act of 1986. This of course lead to huge price increases implemented by people who run British Gas (Centrica) and have no direct accountability, other than to share holders. In July 2008 Centrica announced it’s Gas prices would raise by a record 35% and it’s Electricity prices by a record 26%. It blamed the rise on soaring wholesale energy prices. In May 2009, it then cut those prices, both by 10%. That’s still a huge increase in Gas and Electricity prices. Robert Hammond, a Gas and Electricity consumer expert working for Consumer Focus, said of the cuts: “We would have expected much bigger reductions considering that wholesale gas and electricity prices are half what they were at their peak last year“. Between winter 2007 and winter 2008, the number of deaths caused by fuel poverty (20 years after privatisation set out to free up the markets, to flourish wondrously) rose by 7%….. the biggest increase, since records began.
Arguably the most powerful institutions in the World; Banks. For years, banks had campaigned against regulation. They wanted total autonomy. They were in control of our money, they were using our money for their risky and ultimately hellish investments and bets, but they wanted us to be as far away from our money, and ultimate power as possible. Whilst they had our money, and our homes under their control, the guys at the top were enriching themselves (and continue to do so) despite actually losing our money, and our homes. Those people were not democratically elected. Damn right they should be heavily regulated now. The public sector then bailed out the excesses of Capitalism, and now the public sector is going to pay for it, through tax cuts for the rich, and public service cuts for those less wealthy. Why is no one fighting this? Those banks that received public funds, should pay a huge share of their profits, back into the public system.
Perhaps the key principle of democracy – rule by the people, for the people – apparently doesn’t apply to such powerful and essential institutions, such as Banking. But does apply, to when our rubbish bins get collected. Society is a little bit backward.
My point being, that democratically elected Governments of the past, have worked tirelessly to pass key institutions – that existed to protect the people and to provide a safety net, to the people – to very centralised, very concentrated, very greedy private hands, whose jobs rely solely on how much money they make for their shareholders, not at all for how pleased the majority of the public is with the work they are doing. It is only a matter of times, before the World’s water supplies, change from “The Pacific Ocean”, to “Microsoft Ocean”, in which you have to pay an extortionate price to swim in. Or “GE Spring” in which it’ll cost you to drink from, despite the Spring being a natural resource, that no one has the right to own. You may think this is an extreme example, of Democracy being eroded by Capitalist interest, but the World Bank recently adopted a policy of complete Water privatisation across the World, leading to Corporations (again, unelected, having no desire to serve the public good) such as “Monsanto” collecting a net income, of around $68,000,000 last year alone.
Ironically, democratically elected governments, pursuing Capitalist reform of their market place, are helping to almost overthrow the democratic order of power, and place it in the hands of untouchable Kings, in charge of their own little Corporate Nation, free to use whomever they wish, without fear of rebellion. Much like the Kingdoms of old, these Corporations concentrate Wealth at the top of the hierarchy; proven quite self evident with the fact that 33.4% of the total Wealth of the USA in 2001, was owned by 1% of the population. Whilst the bottom 40% of the population of the USA in 2001, owned 0.3% of the Wealth. What good is “Wealth creation” if it doesn’t trickle down? The argument that Democracy has aided Capitalism is weak at best, it thrives on the notion that in all Capitalist States, sporting Democracy as their rule of the land, the GDP has risen sharply. This, is often cited as proof of the two’s compatibility. Of course, it only works if you measure the Wealth of a Nation by the concentrated wealth of the people at the top. If you chose to focus on the plush lifestyles of those at the top, whilst choosing to ignore the miserable conditions of those at the bottom, then yes, Capitalism and Democracy are very much compatible. Which in turn, means you are focusing on the minority rather than the majority, and so by that very logic, your thought pattern, is undemocratic.
What then happens, and it’s the logical next step in the Capitalisation of the World, is that business interests infect the very heart of Government. They become influential characters behind the scenes, and so private money is pumped into political parties, via campaign contributions, in return for favours that aid the wealth and power of Corporations. As pointed out in the my previous blog entry, The Director of Communications and Planning for the Conservative Party, was once the chief editor of the News Of The World…….owned by Rupert Murdoch…..who is currently on a rampage against media regulation in the UK……. of which it just so happens that David Cameron has agreed to ditch the media regulator Ofcom, if he were to become the next Prime Minister of Great Britain. Given that he is accountable to the public, shouldn’t Cameron be asking us if that’s what we want first? Rather than catering to the needs of a businessman? By that very logic, the Businessman’s vote, is more important than the votes of you and I, and therefore, again, Capitalism promotes undemocratic principles.
Perhaps the old Conservative mantra that “less government interference in private affairs” is necessary for the advancement and freedom of society, should be twisted and turned into “less private interference in government affairs” is necessary for the justice, security, and fairness of humanity in the future. I’ll go with that one.
“The economist, Friedrich August von Hayek, once suggested that Democracy can only possibly exist within a Capitalist system of the economy.”
No he didn’t. He said that central economic planning is incompatible with democracy.
You can still have a large state without central planning. Indeed, governments have recognised that central planning cannot create much wealth for them to tax: they favour heavy regulation and taxation to central control.
I think you should rather use Friedman and Fukuyama. They argued that capitalism, as an end for itself, would produce democracy. Their basis was the middle class. It was based on a Marxist notion of surplus-value, and that this would have to trickle down to the middle class in order to create ever larger consumption, and thus bigger markets. They basically based their idea on the Fordist business model, that actually managed to create a large middle class, but only because Ford himself gave higher wages than any other large scale manufacturer to his workers, so that they eventually could by the cars he made. In effect the workers produced the cars, got less money for their product than the market-value, and than bought it for a higher rate.
But, the idea that capitalism leads to democracy, and in effect the whole basis of Friedman and Fukuyama, went down the drains with the invent of “Democracy with Asian values” in the tiny city state Singapore. Even though there might be a possibility for democracy to evolve there, that idea has spread to other countries. It has been encapsulated by China, who sends politicians to study in Singapore in large numbers, to “learn” from Singapore. That is what constitutes the “Beijing Consensus,” authoritarian capitalism without opening up political channels for peoples participation.
At least before this happened, one could believe in the capitalist notion that it eventually leads to democracy. Now that even western countries are becoming undemocratic, as an effect of authoritarian capitalist countries with high success, capitalism can actually be seen as hampering and turning democracies into dictatorships.
Good article though. You make some valid points. Although there seems to be a thought behind it all that just as long as there is bigger government, then all can be well and done. Singapore has an extremely bog government, that actually has more public spending than many western nations on such things as public health, housing, education and so forth.
I would be extremely interested if you could exaplin why you seem to think that the public sector is populated by angels who think only of the good of mankind.
Your worship of the state is truly sickening. The state does not care about you, the state cares only about the expansion of it’s power and influence. The government is just another corporation, the only difference being it has police powers. For this reason I fear the state but do not fear private corporations, seeing as it is the only the government that can steal my property at gunpoint or throw me in a cage like an animal if I refuse to kowtow to it’s ever more onerous demands.
Nobody claimed the public sector is filled with angels, but this obsession with the markets, is just as dangerous. In fact, I deplore the American and British governments of the past twenty five years, for handing such important roles in our lives, over to private hands.
Take Walmart, who came out strongly in favour of a rise in minimum wage. Why? It would be naive to think they did so, because they genuinely care about their workers. They did so, because a rise in minimum wage would not hurt Walmart as a business, but it would in fact hurt smaller competitors, and so Walmart gain the advantage even more so.
Do you not accept that Corporations, and the private market rely heavily on Public investment? It seems that you free-market obsessers want “less government interference” unless it benefits the markets. The Pentagon’s research budget, is a prime example of using State money (held by people who are actually democratically accountable) to develop the high tech industry of the future, in private hands.
The market doesn’t care about anyone. In an unhindered, completely Capitalist society, we’d have no workers rights, or minimum wage, or decent working conditions. For all the bitching America does about “spreading Democracy”, they seem to fear their own democracy, more than they fear those whose only interest, is profit.
And given how fucked the World is, thanks to crazy neoliberalist policies (Feel free to investigate Latin America), i’m not going to be quick to put my faith in the hands of the rich few.
Giving public money to private corporations is not Capitalism, and it is an inevitable occurance once the government becomes too big.
Interestingly, you do seem aware of the fact that governmental regulation of markets does not in fact protect workers from big corpoerations, it protects big corporations from competition by small businsesses who cannot afford to jump through all the hoops. Why, then, are you in favour of it?
The minimum wage is a great example. The minumum wage does not in any way protect the interests of low-skilled workers. It merely ensures that low skilled workers cannot get jobs. If the service with which you provide your employer is worth $3 an hour and the government says he has to pay you $4, you will simply be fired. So now you are not working, not gaining experience or seniority which you could later use to command a higher wage, and will probably be on welfare for life. It also makes labour less competetive vs capital. The next time you get pissed off because a machine answered your phone call to some business, this is the reason. They will do anything they can to avoid hiring a human being, because of all the idiotic regulations.
Your point on minimum wage, is the argument the Tories made back in 1998, opposing the introduction of minimum wage. What has happened, has been the exact opposite of your argument. If you use Minimum Wage as an isolated piece of regulation, then yes, it will cause some damage, but when it’s mixed with other such policies (Our EMA – Education Maintenance Allowance for example), problems suddenly cease. In fact, unemployment was kept to a low during the years following the introduction of minimum wage, and living standards increase. Spouting Neoliberalist economic “rules” as Gospel truth, is just not going to cut it with me. Humanity and it’s interaction with economics is far more complex than any of us can comprehend.
We have not had the disastrous experience that Conservative economists predicted we would, after the introduction of the minimum wage.
The banking deregulation started here in the 1980s. Suddenly, 25 years down the road, we’re in a crises (I understand that some ridiculous people seem to try to blame the financial crises on EVIL SOCIALIST programs, rather than the fact that deregulated Capitalism, is quite the disaster in the long term).
I think the argument needs to come away from Capitalism vs Socialism, we need to stop claiming that the market can sort everything, or that Government can sort everything, and experiment with bits of both until we find something that works.
And for the record, I don’t trust Government at all. To the point where I wont vote at the next election, because i’m fully aware we’re just going to be voting for one of two Business candidates, who will inevitably fuck up the Country some more. So, if I don’t vote, out of anger, then i’m in no way responsible for the mess they make. However, the little trust I do have, I put more in Left Wing governments, than I put into private companies. I’m bored of Private rhetoric, like “freedom”. I don’t have a mind for business, never will, it’s not my nature, so i’m not free at all. I’m free to be under the influence and coercion, of a boss of a place I have absolutely no say over whatsoever. I could quit, and move on to another place, with the exact same Authoritative (slightly fascist) structure. That’s not freedom. That’s only limited freedom, packaged into a system I didn’t ask to be born into.
Like I said, I don’t trust Government either. Especially given how entwined with private interest they actually are. I think the Iraq War proved that. I’d class myself as Anarcho-Syndicalist. I’d like to see workplaces under democratic control, communities under democratic control; internationally.
I too am going to skip past all of your nonsense and revisions and get right to the point. You’d like to see workplaces under democratic control? So you want to abolish private property then?
This is the only way this can be achieved, full on communism.
As we have it now, the person in charge is the person who fronted the capital to get the business off the ground and the one who took all the risks. The person (or group of people) who stake their hard earned money on a venture that could possibly fail. You want to appropriate this and make it public property under ”democratic control”.
So nobody can own a business ever again? Or is just once it gets to a certain size you want to appropriate it?
Don’t blame capitalism because you dont have a head for business. You sound like the typical entitlement minded punk. Nobody owes you a thing. If you want to eat you have to work, that is just the way the world is, trying to change this fact always involves making someone else work so that you can eat. When it is YOUR hard earned money on the line, then YOU get to call the shots, otherwise shut the hell up and do what the boss says, you arent the one losing money if the business fails, he is.
Okay I see where this is leading. The typical conservative argument. So, i’m going to leave it here, and just say…..yes, that’s what I want…. to do no work, take your money for your hard work, and spend it on a luxurious life for “lazy” poor people. That’s exactly right =/
Your assumptions are incredible. Firstly, i’m on no entitlements. Secondly, I work, thirdly, I’m also at university most of the day every day, before going to work in the evening, and lastly… I never claimed that I don’t want to work. You just invented all of that yourself. Congratulations.
I figured you might overlook all my “nonsense and revisions” (although, I’m not sure which bits you consider nonsense and revision?)
Fine, I’ll accept I made some extrapolations from what you said.
Please explain to me then how you can have the workplace under ”democratic control” while still maintaining private property rights.
If by private property you mean the means and modes of production……. then no, it wouldn’t and shouldn’t be private. It’d be democratically owned, decisions made by the people who make the money, rather than one guy who once “took a risk”, or his kids who inherited his “risk” or shareholders who had absolutely no say in that “risk”.
If in 500 years time, people don’t look back and think “that Capitalist free-for-all was fucking barbaric”,i’d be surprised.
Surely under Capitalism, you accept that for there to be winners, there HAS to be losers?
Also, let me put a question to you.
If you were blinded from society; you didn’t know whether you’re black or white, male or female, rich or poor, and you had the chance to shape a new society. What would you choose? A more equal distribution of wealth because you might be poverty stricken? Or less equal, more Capitalist, because you might be rich? Which would you choose? If you were starting from scratch, that is?
The point is, in that situation, fundamentally, I can’t imagine anyone saying “I’d choose the Capitalist society, and if I were in poverty, tough, i’d just have to starve”.
Ok this is just ridiculous now. Why whine about me making assumptions when those assumptions are correct? You are a communist, you just laid it out, and if you want to talk about ”barbarism” you should look at how many tens of millions of people that ideology has killed, directly.
Anyway, in your democratic paradise, where is the investment going to come from? Who is going to pay to have that factory built? Why would anyone front the capital to get anything built if it’s going to be stolen from them and handed over to the workers?
In a capitalist system, everyone is a winner, some just win bigger than others. Even poor people in capitalist societies have access to goods and services that rich people 200 years ago could only dream of, plus they have a chance to make something of themselves, rather than being doomed to down-at-heel poverty for the rest of their lives.
And no, our current system is not Capitalist, since the whole premise of Capitalism is to accumulate Capital and then invest it in new ventures, the clue is in the name. Our current system would be better named ”Creditism”, since credit has effectively replaced capital in our business transactions, which is why we are in the mess we are in now.
“You are a communist, you just laid it out, and if you want to talk about ”barbarism” you should look at how many tens of millions of people that ideology has killed, directly.”
- Yeah because the spread of Capitalism (supported by Reagan and Thatcher, and actually directly helped by Milton Friedman in some cases) in Chile, in Brazil, in Latin America, has been amazing. But they were left wingers that lost their lives, so you neoliberalists aren’t that concerned.
Secondly. Communism only started to come around in about September 1917, before the Bolsheviks took power. They then shut down democratically run workers councils, and ran the USSR as a State Capitalist society. If you want to continue to call it communist, fine, but it wasn’t. Lenin used to refer to the USSR as Democracy too. Why don’t you claim that Democracy has killed tens of millions? I’d assume because you and I both know that the USSR was FAR from democratic. It was neither communist (wages, profits, and a state are the antithesis of communism) nor democratic, it was authoritarian, in fact the way it was run was one big corporation. The institutions that were heading toward socialism after February 1917, were soon destroyed by the Bolsheviks.
So no, your assumptions, and your idea of “communism” are wrong.
American is not Capitalist. It never was. The cold war was not Capitalism vs Communism. America was and still is very protectionist. The Pentagon and Nasa’s involvement in the aviation industry (specifically, the Boeing Corporation) is proof of that. In fact, there is very limited choice in the airline industry, long delays, badly treated customers, and hugely expensive prices – if it were Nationalised and in that state of shame, you Capitalists would be demanding privatisation. When the free market appears to offer no real alternatives, no one says a word. The airline deregulators, the free market enthusiasts who told everyone that regulation of routes and fares was destructive, and that deregulation would improve everything ten fold, were quite clearly very very wrong.
Similarly, deregulation of the electricity industry (in California mainly) lead to bills rising by more than twice the size of bills during the regulated times (less than a year before).
The writer (and obviously, fellow EVIL COMMUNIST ARRRGH!!!) Robert Kuttner, said of this…
“There is a very long lead time in the construction of power plants. The free market can’t easily predict weather conditions or peak demands; it can’t suddenly add new capacity. Electricity is, of course, a necessity. If scarcity suddenly materializes because private entrepreneurs cut construction costs, they still win by raising prices. Consumers can only conserve so much; they simply have to pay whatever the electric company charges. (Price competition is not meaningful in a deregulated system because different power companies increasingly all buy in the same wholesale power market and charge essentially the same prices.)”
You’re basing your assumptions on how great true Capitalism would be, on theory, not on fact. Would you agree that all legislation that has worked in favour of big business (copyright laws etc) should be abolished, because that represents a distortion of the market? Also, all laws relating to better working conditions, child labour etc, should also be abolished because they also distort the market? Maybe you’re a supporter of people like Rothbard, who are in their defence, actual consistant neoliberalists, in that they want no Government interference whatsoever – roads built by rich people who should be allowed to charge if you want to use it, the idea that roads shouldn’t be communal, and state schools shouldn’t exist, because the market is better placed to sort it out (like electricity, and airlines). A World built on suspicion and hatred basically. As if there’s really a contradiction between social and individual desires. As if communities don’t actually exist, we all hate each other, and are by nature – greedy – which is simply untrue.
I’m not Communist, although I wouldn’t be ashamed of it if I was. I’d be far more ashamed to call myself a neoliberalist. I’m much more of an Anarchist. Like I said, it’s Anarcho-Syndicalism that I stand for. Power devolved, right down to the very mean and mode of production. Economic decisions made at local levels, a completely different society. “Investment” exists in the current society ruled by waged labour and profit; a society in which the “choice” is to either rent yourself out to the owners of capital, or starve (that’s not real choice). I believe in economic institutions democratically run by their workers and the communities they are within. A sort of federal system of free association. Nobody is stupid enough (well, apart from Neoliberalists) to predict how societies or structures or theories will work, you have to experiment in order to figure out the best ways to organise such societies.
Actually no, it is up to you to prove how your system will improve society. If we experimented with every idiotic social system people came up with we’d never get anywhere.
It is entirely predictable what would happen if we stole the property of business owners at gunpoint and handed it out to their employees as you advocate. There would be no new economic ventures since nobody would want to invest only to have their stuff stolen. The fact that you seem to think investment is not important shows that you don’t know anything about economics, though of course I already knew that, if you did you wouldn’t be a leftist.
Investment is sacrificing the present for the future, as the future invariably becomes the present high amounts of capital investment results in economic growth. Where are the resources going to come from to build factories or shops or hospitals or anything? Where are you going to get the bricks and mortar and girders and machines you need? How are you going to get the money? You still havent answered this question. No private individual will front the capital under these cirumstances so where are you going to get it?
Well, we all know the answer to that question. The entire economy will have to be turned over to a central authority (the state) which will then enslave swathes of the population to get the capital needed. The results will still be diabolical compared to what the free market could have achieved and you’ll end with another USSR.
Can I take your lack of argument on airline, electricity and the nature of the USSR as an admission that maybe you weren’t correct? Are you not a true market fundamentalist afterall? Try and answer the questions that I put to you.
“Actually no, it is up to you to prove how your system will improve society. If we experimented with every idiotic social system people came up with we’d never get anywhere.”
- Firstly, how am I to prove a system will improve society, without experimenting? In fact, how does any hypothesis get proven without testing and experimenting? To suggest it’s my job to prove the case for Anarcho-Syndicalism, given that it’s never been tried, is ridiculous. Of course you have to experiment to prove.
Secondly, why is it idiotic? It has never been tried. Fundamentally, for me, a system that allows someone to control wealth well into the billions of dollars, whilst someone else can starve to death, despite their being enough resources to feed the World…… is not only idiotic, it’s uncivilised, backward, a free for all of greed. I cannot accept any justification for that type of system.
“high amounts of capital investment results in economic growth”
- In theory, perhaps that’s true. In practice…. not so much! New York City is quite clearly the City of incredible amounts of capital investment…… i’d advise you go and look up the child poverty rate in New York City.
Investment in your sense of the word, is important, because you’re using it in the sense of the Capitalist system. I’m suggesting that economic decisions are made by the community, democratically, rather than privately. Of course, if I just started taking property from business owners, yet kept a capitalist system in place, no one would put up investment any more, we’d soon die out. That’s obvious. Now, in a World where production, trade, economics, is democratically run by communities for the social good rather than the idea that one out of one hundred people wants a new yacht and so that’s perfectly acceptable whilst someone else starves, there is no need to search for “investment” because it simply wouldn’t exist. Economic decision making democratically voted on by the devolved communities. From the basis that someone fencing off a public water supply, and saying “Well, i’m taking a risk financially with making this private, so it’s mine by right, rather than the community” is so incredibly wrong.
The reason this is not Communism, is that it is workplace democracy. Real democracy. In which the institutions that govern our lives (water, electricity, health etc) are democratically accountable, and so if the workers wanted to vote on a system based on unequal pay or reward or whatever, they’re free to do so.
True freedom. Not the neoliberalist, rather ironic concept of freedom.
For a full explanation, try the writings of Rudolf Rocker.
You’re a market fundamentalist who will hear no bad words about the market, I’m an anarcho-syndicalist who refuses quite dogmatically to accept that the market is the answer to everything. We’re never going to agree.
[...] The incompatibility of Capitalism and Democracy [...]
I ignored your various whinings about individual cases because that vein of argumentation is worthless. Obviously I could point out the fact that as China, Singapore and the other asian creditor nations ahve embraced free market principles they have found an almost instantaneous turnaround in their economic fortunes. As Rebelliosvanilla pointed out, Singapore was a swamp half a century ago, its government spends less than 20% of its GDP and now it has the greatest per capita reserves in the world.
But anyway you still have not answerd my basic question, obviously because you cannot.
You can talk all you want about democratic this and democratic that, WHERE ARE THE RESOURCES GOING TO COME FROM?
When we need a new factory, how are you going to get the resources to build it? Who is going to produce them? What are they going to get in exchange for parting with them? Where are you going to get the money from? You cannot set up a system whereby nobody is going to front the capital for any economic venture without having some idea about where this capital is then going to come from. You expect to destroy the very basis for all economic activity and you can’t even tell me how this is to be replaced.
You just don’t get it. There is no ”production”, there is no ”trade” without somehow getting the resources to get that production and trade off the ground. So there won’t be anything to democratically decide, it might work for a little while on the legacy of the economy we have built right now, but no new economic ventures will be launched and the ones we have will slowly decay.
And like I said, the outcome is obvious. Once it becomes clear that nobody is going to invest in creating any new business ventures of their own accord, the entire economy will have to be turned over to a central authority, which will use force to get the resources it needs.
Just answer me that one simple question. After you’ve gutted the economy by destroying, absolutely, the basis for investment in new ventures, what will you do to replace this model? How will any new businesses get the capital they need to start up?
Commenter Oliver is dissing Rawls 1971 “Veil of Ignorance” experiment? Bet I know where this discussion went…
More when I finish reading.
You could start with the American CEOs who got nailed for corruption and skip the Keynesian BS, quit rewarding them for cheating shareholders out of their money by paying them with taxpayers’ money. Instead of rewarding these thieves, we could punish THEM, strip THEM of their assets. That’s where the investment capital should come from.
Don’t even get me started on Boeing. I think McNerney sold the company recently, but he owned that and Proctor&Gamble the entire time GW and Milton Friedman spent blowing up the third world. Friedman was also best buddies with Chilean war criminal Pinochet. They had some of the most vile deals set up–declaring wartorn regions disaster zones, so they could appropriate the homes formerly owned by the war refugees. New resort hotels for wealthy American tourists. Tough bananas for the homeless.
McNerney was the mastermind who revolutionized Mercenary Capitalism by turning billion dollar machines into consumable products for Bush’s imperialist shite. Big fat tax write-offs for P&G’s oh-so-helpful donations of toothpaste for the displaced *snerk*.
If commenter Oliver thinks there’s something wrong with divesting people like these of their assets, he’s the one who needs to go back to school. I walked out on my accounting&economics classes bc I was just so appalled by the conditions these charlatains try to pass off as ‘growth’. My economics prof was a big proponent of Friedman. The guy’s poor-bashing speeches gave me a frikkin ulcer. .
Oh, and a society built by the poor to further the interests of the rich is no democracy. It’s an oligarchy.
Heya! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with hackers?
My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing many months of hard work due to
no backup. Do you have any methods to protect against hackers?