Thursday, May 01, 2008

Capitalism Failing? What Are You Talking About? We Haven't Had Much of That for Years!

From the Federal Reserve to the socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the socialist policies of George W. Bush, it's time to thank the elitists for "trying" to help us live more comfortably--and send them packing--because it sure isn't helping.

If you think their "capitalist" policies have failed, you haven't studied economics very deeply, because them policies ain't capitalist.

When I was a kid 30 years ago, I could buy a loaf of bread for 1/4 the price it is now. Thank you Federal Reserve! The Fed was the worst economic decision the United States of America ever made. (The moral-hazard-enhancing beast called the FDIC was a stupid idea not much smarter than the Fed.) The Fed's inflationary monetary policies benefit the elite few, but by the time the money trickles down to everyday-you-and-me, the prices of everything have gone up! The Fed presided over a cataclysmic economic depression beginning just 16 years after its

It's not capitalism that's really failing. If you sneak back and pay attention to the man behind the curtain, you'll notice that he's a Socialist through and through. And he's been that way for a long time.

founding, and they haven't learned anything yet. The longer the Fed tries to tune its way out of our currently impending economic collapse, the greater that collapse will eventually be.

Bailouts-R-Us. From Mexican Peso bailouts to Asian bailouts to Russian Ruble bailouts to Bear Stearns bailouts to the subprime bailout--these bailouts are getting both bigger and more frequent. The center cannot hold. And yet Barney Frank wants to provide yet another bailout--while the value of housing plummets with no sure end in sight, leaving homeowners with far more debt than their homes are worth?

Why are housing prices so inelastic? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's in large part because of government's having become the bailer-out of last resort.

Why are there people rioting in the streets around the world at the shortage of food? Not because of capitalism, but because of the lack of it. Capitalism is
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned [or controlled] means of wealth.
Food in your Gas Tank. Government has been interfering in the capitalism of food production for decades now, whether it

A major reason for food shortages across the world is the collusion between "green" companies and the government. But then again, food scarcity helps the elite solve one of their pet concerns--overpopulation. Put that in your Global Warming pipe and smoke it.

is to bail out a Soviet economy that can't support itself or to pay farmers to let their land lie fallow. Now, a major reason for food shortages across the world is the collusion between "green" companies and the government in their ill-conceived attempt to find alternative fuels. Sounds an awful lot like fascism to me.

But then again, food scarcity helps the elite solve one of their pet concerns--overpopulation. Put that in your Global Warming pipe and smoke it.

Meanwhile, the masses associate what they're seeing with Western Capitalism--and they want no more of it. Thanks to western fascists.

The very poor and the very rich are the only ones really noticing the problem right now. But what about you? Are you really doing better than you were 1, 2, or 5 years ago? Not me. And I have a computer programming job. I feel sorry for my neighbor who's trying to feed his family of six on $18 per hour with no benefits.

. . .

The same tired "solutions" to our problems are not going to work this time, because they haven't worked yet. That's why we can't afford to vote for any of the popular candidates for president this time around--because their solutions are more of the same at a time of impending crisis. It's not too late to give your support to Ron Paul, because he is the ONLY presidential candidate who has pledged to try to get us out of our one-track establishmentarian rut.

It's not capitalism that's really failing. If you sneak back and pay attention to the man behind the curtain, you'll notice that he's a Socialist through and through. And he's been that way for a long time.




10 comments:

  1. Frank, I’m curious how you conclude that a purely capitalist system, a “free-market” based on the theories we’ve referred to before, would increase the wages of the average person? Ever since the industrial revolution, whenever we’ve had the sort of completely unregulated markets about which the free market idolaters fantasize, we’ve had explosive increase in the gap between the rich and poor, miserable and deadly working conditions (consider these posts, robber barons, etc. As far as I can see, in a free-market, without government oversight, it is a certainty that capital will wildly externalize their costs on others (pollution; the health and well-being of their workers, etc).

    I’m surprised you would extol a system of which the corporate structure is an innate part, given the fact that the corporate structure obscures accountability and encourages profit as a sole motive, as we’ve recently discussed. I’m likewise surprised you would so favor a system which defines itself in opposition to cooperative efforts. After all, our Gospel is all about cooperation. There is nothing competitive about it. I would think we should try to apply the principle of cooperation in all of our endeavors, including those economic/financial in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not say what you think I'm saying at all. I'm saying, rather that

    (1) The Federal Reserve and the FDIC are a bad idea.

    (2) The kind of "regulation" that we have now favors the elite (who are the rich), which is not fair. This is the kind of "cooperative efforts" that I do not extol.

    (3) We can't keep bailing nations and tycoons and everyone else out, because pretty soon there won't be anything left to bail with.

    Regulation is very important, so long as it is constitutional and fairly applied. We don't have a whole lot of either those, either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 2 thoughts...

    First of all, with any system, there will be those who take advantage of it. In running my own business for a couple of years, I have noticed that as I get more opportunities, I like to try and bring others in on the game. I hadn't planned it, but I now have a network of programmers and graphic designers that feed me work, I feed them, and it keeps growing. Capitalism isn't about making as much as you can, it's about reaching your potential and helping others reach theres. The difference is that it free choice, not a regulation that makes it work so well.

    Second, when I was a kid I wanted to be a game warden and work in nature conservation, and I still have an interest in it. One key element I have noticed is that you can't control nature. Ecosystems are incredibly complex, and if you try and control one part of it, other parts are thrown off balance and disaster ensues. True conservation is about minimizing impact on a system and letting nature take it's course, not imposing a plan on it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You say:

    Capitalism isn't about making as much as you can, it's about reaching your potential and helping others reach theres.

    Exactly.

    I was under the impression by Derek's comment that he thinks that I think capitalism IS ONLY about "making as much as you can." It can't be, because it couldn't sustain itself under such circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  5. UK, nice definition of capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Frank, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I so often see the capitalist apologists completely disregard the legitimate role of government in the public sphere (health, safety, labor, environmental regulation). They want an unfettered market. I assumed you were making the same points.

    You may be right about the Federal Reserve and FDIC; I'm currently studying those instruments of U.S. financial policy from several different perspectives to better judge their worth. I would agree that the primary regulation in force is the sort of regulation protecting the interests of the monied elites; many agents have actively worked to neuter meaningful and fair regulation over the past couple of decades. And yes, I'm very leery of such bailouts as well, though I believe there is a legitimate role for government to help the disadvantaged.

    UK, I disagree with your optimistic definition of capitalism. Such a philosophy is not what is taught under conventional free-market theory, nor is it the practice in the corporate world of the marketplace. The watchword in capitalism is competition, not cooperation. And yes, it is not sustainable, which is why the market must be moderated, not unfettered.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Derek,

    You make some excellent points. I'll be interested in your research on the Fed and FDIC, as you have a (healthy) way of looking at things that seem to fall into one of more of my blind spots.

    ;-)

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's interesting how you said that regulations should be "constitutional and fairly applied".

    I'm just finishing my preparation for a Constitutional Law final and I've learned one very important thing. "Constitutional" means whatever the heck is politically expedient for the Supreme Court, and "Fair" doesn't appear in jurisprudence.
    E.g.
    Constitutional-
    All the way up through Lochner (1937 Great Depression era) the court deferred to to the Contract Clause of the Constitution which said that whatever a person contracted for was good enough and the government couldn't interfere. In 1937 when FDR threatened to put judges who agreed with him on the Supreme Court, the Court changed its mind and said that the government could regulate pretty much whatever they wanted under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    Fair-
    There's no right or wrong in law; it's just rules. For a prime example of this, read the model rules for professional ethics for lawyers. For more a more sedative read, grab a used Constitutional Law book and knock yourself out. Literally and figuratively.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Carl,

    You're right.

    So to solve these problems, we need to

    (1) Elect people now who realize that FDR was a mistake.

    (2) Teach constitutional law in the law schools instead of the garbage that currently masquerades as such.

    (3) Call out and get rid of all lawyers who don't understand the definition of "fair".

    Tall order? Yes. Critical to our survival? Absolutely. Impossible? I hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Derekstaff,
    I would be curious on what your suggestions are in how to regulate a free market. A free market by definition is not regulated. I think to some extent it needs to be, like you and Frank have said, although I believe that it should be minimal and you believe it should be greater. And I will agree that the way it is regulated and managed by our government right now is not the best way. I don't know if I would say that it is even a good way. You seem like you are a smart person, but you seem so against capitalism. It has been a proven system. Look at the old USSR, East Germany and other nations that have been under a government controlled market. It fails. I personally think that UK's definition of capitalism is great, even if that is not what is taught under "conventional free-market theory." If you have had your own business and been part of the "corporate world," like UK (and to a small extent myself), you know that cooperation is the only way to survive. And competition is absolutely necessary. Or else you have a larger problem on your hands.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.