Disaster capitalists: Halliburton to make money off oil spill

reply to post by ~Lucidity


The point was that all of these big shot politicians are this, amongst other nefarious things. Too many people are deluded to this reality, therefore it's my duty too press the issue everywhere possible. Even Naomi Klein was tricked by Obama, but I think I saw a while ago that she woke up.

I didn't follow too closely the Haiti ordeal to see where there was disaster capitalization other than just another excuse to put some US forces on foreign lands, although my preconception was that the US had been puppeteering that place since at least as early as Clinton.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why call it 'disaster capitalism' when it's simply capitalism.

Disaster Capitalism ("DC", no pun intended) is its own animal, er rather monster. DC'ists are the sorts who have their portfolio's positioned to reap massive profits from disasters, in the investment sense, such as Don Rumsfeld and Tamiflu.

Then there's prime examples in outfits such as Halliburtan whose entire manifest is geared towards disasters, and are unsurprisingly too often directly involved in their causes and their profiteering.

Then you have politician types, such as Rahm Emanual, whose modus operandi is to wait and prey on the "opportunities" crisis provide. A couple years ago most people thought this was an attitude right out of the Neocon playbook:
9/11's "Opportunities"

It is, but it isn't unique to them exclusively:
Obama speech as proof he doesn't care about the environment, or even oil for that matter.

This combined paradigm is about the grossest thrust in Conflict of Interest possible. It's a conflict of interest against all of humanity to have massively weathly and powerful people waiting to descend on the next mega-disaster for personal exploit. Inherently, unethical greedy people poised to profit from disasters will lead to those disasters either by manufacturing or just simply sitting back and allowing them to happen. These types of people should be public enemy #1, sharing the title with the Bankster cartel types, of which these is little difference.

Klein did a most impressive job articulating this reality, but she fell short pinning it exclusively on the Neocon's. I applauded her none the less.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 26-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Great information Ig...I know this has long been a hot button of yours too. Interesting about Naomi...she was a real hero in identifying a lot of this to the general public. I hope she gets back on track. As for Obama fooling her...well the fooled a lot of people.

I'm going to digest your threads and information after dinner. Always been a great fan of your work. And I've been "away" far to long, but my feet are getting wet again.

reply to post by ANOK

I understand where you're coming from. But I also think a catchy name to focus people on the concept of disaster capitalism as a subset of capitalsim can't hurt. Not all disaster capitalism is out of control.

But when you see the same companies washing both hands, as in this case, repeatedly, when you see the same cronies both instigating and profiting from perpetual war...that needs focus. People need to make the connections. There something about it that isn't fundamentally right or human.

Originally posted by ANOK
It's an artificial system that creates an artificial scarcity of resources through either under production, or the destruction of unsold resources.

Can you show data that demonstrates how socialism or communism are more efficient at production, which would therefore mean more efficient at providing abundance?

Sure, crooks can conspire to do illegal market manipulation sorts of practices, but it's a massively fallacious stretch to say that the entire concept of free market capitalism is inherently based on creating false scarcity. That's not to say that its flawless, but who could argue that communism variants are at least as flawed??

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I'm going to digest your threads and information after dinner. Always been a great fan of your work. And I've been "away" far to long, but my feet are getting wet again.

Thanks! I've been slacking for far too long too. Been trying to get warmed up again, but it's a real challenge to get my machine tuned to how I used to operate.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
Capitalism is a group of people investing in someone with a good idea to make life better.

No it isn't, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. You are trying to define it from a political view.
Capitalism is not money.

Capitalism From Conservapedia

Capitalism, also called a free market economy is an economic system based on private ownership and entrepreneurship

www.conservapedia.com...

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

dictionary.reference.com...

InvestorWords.com
capitalism

Definition
Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists;

www.investorwords.com...

Capitalism always has to include private ownership of the means of production in it's definition.

Capitalism set up the state, the system in which their perceived right to own the means of production is enforced through police, military, church, schools etc.

The ownership of the means of production by the few is what keeps the majority in economic slavery.

Capitalism and free-market is an oxymoron, there is nothing free about capitalism. The means of production is in the hands of the few true capitalists, owners of real capital, factories etc., so anyone who opens a business is not really a capitalist as your business is still controlled by those who own the means of producing the needed resources for life (we're not talking about the toys you want or think you need). You are really just another worker owned and controlled by the capitalist system. Capitalists don't make money from their labour, it comes from their ownership of the means of production.

The word has become so loosely used as to confuse everyone of the true economic definition of the term and what the system really is.

Socialist societies can have free markets, most people don't realise that there is nothing wrong in having MONEY, or being financially wealthy, many socialists and even anarchists are relatively wealthy (Chomsky). Because money is not the problem, private ownership of the means of production is. Without that resources could be more abundant and thus cheaper and more available for all, less struggling for daily needs, less stress, less labouring for others in order to afford needed resources, less need for 'welfare' (for the poor and rich).
No more wars to maintain the scarcity of oil in order to take your financial power (money is your only power in this system) from you and re-distribute it back to the capitalist.

It's the artificial scarcity of resources, in order for capitalists to maintain their power, that keeps most of the world in poverty. It's capitalism that drives the market to the point of producing unnecessary garbage to simply consume or exchange for other 'needed' resources, because those needed resources are kept artificially scarce. The need for a market at all would be reduced simply due to the reduced need to scramble to make money to exchange it for needed resources. Capitalism drives societies desire for new toys that we simply don't need and wouldn't even care about if they were never made available. Every time an I-Pod is made resources are taken from starving children mouths.

That is the fundamental flaw of capitalism and it can't be changed, if you take away the private ownership of the means of production and give it to the people then you have socialism. A completely free-market within capitalism would mean absolute exploitation and oppression of almost everyone. It might make YOU better off than the person next to you, but that is not freedom, and it's not a solution to the worlds economic unbalance.


BTW 'private property' in the context of capitalism doesn't mean your personal property, socialists define it as property that is used to produce/distribute resources and exploit labour. You can keep the houses, cars or whatever. You can even keep your factory, just don't expect anyone to work for you when they can go down the street to a cooperative and make more money and have better working conditions.

[edit on 6/26/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by ANOK
It's an artificial system that creates an artificial scarcity of resources through either under production, or the destruction of unsold resources.

Can you show data that demonstrates how socialism or communism are more efficient at production, which would therefore mean more efficient at providing abundance?

Nope, there is no date because there has been no communist or socialist systems practiced anywhere.

There is no guarantee it would work either, but that would be up to you and me wouldn't it...We are the ones to make it work, not those sitting in their ivory towers completely disconnected from society and unaware of what we really want or need.

You are all looking for someone or something to come save you all and make the system better, like superman or something lol. It's up to each and everyone of us to make the system work, and while we are enslaved under the private ownership of the means to produce what we need (simply food in a lot of places) we don't have the power to make the system how we want it, we are not free while we struggle for survival in a world of plenty.

This is why capitalism replaced feudalism, under feudalism the workers had far more freedom and had far more opportunity to address grievances with the land owner. The land owner feared the peoples power and suffered under their anger many times (The Peasants Revolt in the 1300's for one classic example). And they still do, but the state controlled media calls them 'race riots', which is just another lie used to control and divide in order to keep the population appeased and passive.

If you could all just separate money from capitalism for a minute and see that money, nor markets, are the issue. We don't need the few owning the means of production in order to have free-markets, and all have enough of what we need, in order to rebalance the worlds economy mess. No where in history has the rich-poor divide been so great.

[edit on 6/26/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
Nope, there is no date because there has been no communist or socialist systems practiced anywhere.

It's been tried...

...but it falls apart. For it to work you need agreement, and when people don't agree the system doesn't work and they have to be neutralized or eliminated.

This thread might be a good one for you to check out:
The Zeitgeist Movement is *Pure Communism*

There is no guarantee it would work either, but that would be up to you and me wouldn't it...

We still dictate the flow of things based on what we buy. It takes socialistic programs, including taxes in general, to force us to buy what we don't want.

not those sitting in their ivory towers completely disconnected from society and unaware of what we really want or need.

How would this be any different under socialism?

I do like the idea of cooperatives. Don't see people bring them up too often, so I havent seen a solid framework for actually bringing them in widescale, because it still takes capital investments, in risk, to build things.

You are all looking for someone or something to come save you all and make the system better, like superman or something lol.

I've tried proposing how we can actually take control of the system, and where our money goes, and in how things are done...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Didn't gain much interest 'round here.

It's up to each and everyone of us to make the system work, and while we are enslaved under the private ownership of the means to produce what we need (simply food in a lot of places) we don't have the power to make the system how we want it, we are not free while we struggle for survival in a world of plenty.

I think you speak a tad bit too broadly.

For instance, you can buy a farm and grow your own food. You can grow your own food anyways. Buy a pump and pump your own water. There's your means of production for things you'd need. You speak as if there are 5 dudes up in the penthouse of the 450 storey superscaper that overlooks the entire continent, who own everything and sit up there toasting champagne and smoking phat cigars while getting full body massages with happy endings while watching out over us and wiping their butts with money when they take a break to go to the can.

It's not quite that monolithic, but communism almost is.

This is the first time in my entire life that I've ever seen anyone speak positively about feudalism. That is a real mind job.

If you could all just separate money from capitalism for a minute and see that money, nor markets, are the issue.

At least you're saying that. The Zeitgeist people go waaay overboard talking like we're gonna give up money and all forms of trade (period).

We don't need the few owning the means of production in order to have free-markets, and all have enough of what we need, in order to rebalance the worlds economy mess. No where in history has the rich-poor divide been so great.

I can see the appeal factor of pure communism, much how the Zeitgeist people are trying to revitalize it, but I fail to see how to implement it without it going tyrannical. I've begged them to explain and they've all failed. Maybe you can do better...



We've happened to take Lucidity's thread way off the tracks here.

That's okay...it's great information!

I was coming back to say I was thinking about what someone posted about all or many companies profiting from disasters, and I don't think that's true. If I remember correctly, Naomi's book had some very specific examples, and there seem to be some top violators.

In addition, even if there are companies who do that as a business...main mission...they're not always washing both hands. What ever happened to conflict of interest? Another thing that's gone by the wayside in this country (and probably the world).

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by ANOK
Nope, there is no date because there has been no communist or socialist systems practiced anywhere.

It's been tried...

OK I take it back it was tried, in Spain during the 39 revolution.

You should read about it...

struggle.ws...

The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers; however, in practice these "vouchers" performed and functioned as money themselves.

Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragonia, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%.[2] The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes).

eng.anarchopedia.org...

It didn't fall apart from any fault of its own, just the powers of the European establishment was too strong and WWII started. But that's for a whole other thread.

The Zeitgeist movement has nothing to do with socialism whatever some idiot says...

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean no money or markets, another fallacy. Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on that, they only difference in the systems is who owns the means of production, private entities or worker/public (and there isn't just one way to do that, such as no government worker controlled as in Spain). Each system dictates to a point how things are organized in society.

Why is it folks can't just see it for what it is instead of keep trying to equate it to other negativeness? You can only see the positives in your own system, and can only see the negatives in everything else. Comes from the conditioning of an egocentric state system.

The problem though these days is working people have lost their sense of community, we used to stick together and fight for each others rights, a bad done to one was done to all. Now we fight each other just to get by.

And please do stop being so damn condescending, star wars..

[edit on 6/26/2010 by ANOK]

I have long applauded Klein in her identification of Corporatist as defined in the modern age as being those ready to profit on disaster (Neocons). Although the free market economics as defined by Milton are not the same as what I would call the truly free market as envisioned by the Austrian school of economics of which I am inclined to and schooled in.

None the less Haliburton is certainly operated in the neocon variety of disaster capitalist. I despise these guys as war and disaster profiteers. They live off of and profit handsomely from the misery and suffering of others. I think that any time they come up for a contract they should first be closely investigated to determine their role if any in the causation side of the war or disaster they seek to profit from. The problem is that most well meaning politicians are what H.L. Menken would call Gentlemen. What I would call political virgins. They are easy prey for these disaster mongers.

I would classify Obama as one of these Gentlemen. He was well meaning but entirely naive. In fact he was likely chosen as an articulate although naive to throw under the bus of the Corporatist. They likely are using him as the guy to put in place the political winds to bring in the next dictator in chief of the US.

The main players in the current Corporatist disaster show in the gulf all have links to the neocons in one way or the other. The Skull & Bones members are prominent players which as many of you know is the secretive cabal of corporatist set up entirely to profit from the fog of war and disaster. There members being in key positions to both direct policy and hand out contracts to their member's companies.

check out my thread on halliburton & the oil spill. I had followed all of Halliburton and Boots & Coots activity since the spill, pretty shady stuff going on.