5 Ways Privatization Is Poisoning America

reply to post by gladtobehere


Yes . . . companies should be able buy public land, for business purposes. However, that is not what the practice of Privatization is.

You are making the same mistake the article is and conflating a Free Market, which is based on the rights of an individual or Laissez Faire economic principles with Privatization of public land and works, which is based on Corporatism.

Originally posted by solomons path
. . . Privatization is not a free market practice.

Would you explain that, please.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

Yes . . . companies should be able buy public land, for business purposes. However, that is not what the practice of Privatization is.

You are making the same mistake the article is and conflating a Free Market, which is based on the rights of an individual or Laissez Faire economic principles with Privatization of public land and works, which is based on Corporatism.

I am not an expert on economic definitions; however, I think you are making a distinction where, in practice, there is none. The difference between a 'sole individual' owning a public resource and a 'corporation' owning a corporate resource is one of sematics. Especially in the US where 'corporations' are 'people'.

Regardless the practice of Privatization is anathema to the public or common good and only serves the interests of Big Business, Capital and Wealth, however organized.

And thanks for clarifying your meaning, I do appreciate it.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by solomons path
. . . Privatization is not a free market practice.

Would you explain that, please.

A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies

Free Market Wiki

The most common form associated with a Free Market economy is Laissez Faire economic policy:

The laissez-faire principle expresses a preference for an absence of non-market pressures on prices and wages, such as those from government taxes, subsidies, tariffs, regulation (other than protection from coercion and theft), or government-granted or coercive monopolies.

It is very important you pay attention to the last line of the Laissez Faire description . . . "government-granted or coercive monopolies".

Privatization is the method used to subsidize corps who pay for the right to manage public land or works, such as a regions water supply or food supply . . . These corps then own the rights to this, so if you use or compete with them . . . they hold legal right to sue or have you imprisoned. I thought I gave examples in my other posts, with Monsanto actions against farmers being the most egregious currently. These corps are given subsidies, granted through government regulation a monopoly to these resources, and these rights are upheld through coercion through the FDA/DOJ to keep out private farmers and smaller companies. Privatization is a practice in Collectivism, also called Crony Capitalism, and is employed by the Progressives (Left) and the Repubs (Right) in our government. It's what is happening with roads and prisons, as well. Tax dollars build either directly or through subsidies and then the corp manages, while continuing to enjoy subsidies (support of government). See my other examples in previous posts.

While these companies are not paying taxes or have to deal with competition, which the Progressives use as fodder against the practice (even though they are complicit in the practice), they are hand-picked by the gov (usually by donation level) and receive subsidies and many a tax break to "manage" the land or service.

In simplified terms, Agenda 21 is a master blueprint, or guidelines, for constructing “sustainable” communities. Agenda 21 was put forth by the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development, and was adopted by over 200 countries (signed into “soft law” by George Bush Sr.) at the United Nations Rio Conference in 1992. In 1994 the President’s Council for Sustainable Development was created via Executive Order by Bill Clinton to begin coordinating efforts at the Federal level to make the US Agenda 21 compliant.

The IPCC document HS 15332 Climate Change Impacts: Securitization of Water, Food, Soil, Health, Energy and Migration explains how the UN plans to secure resources to use at their disposal. Through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) under-developed countries are forced to sell their resources to the global Elite as “full cost recovery” to the global central bankers. Once those resources are under the complete control of the IMF they become assets to be reallocated back to the enslaved nations for a price.

Agenda 21 Resources Plan

Since the "Right" is associated with Free Market Principle, fallaciously I might add, the "Left" exposes their tactics and smears things like Free Market economics. And, since the "Left" is associated with things like Green Energy, the "Right" smears these ideas by exposing their tactics. However, Green Energy would help the environment and the individual, just as Free Market principles would help our economy and the individual. The similarity is that both sides are on the same team when smearing and turning public opinion against anything that is rooted in the rights of the individual.

The Free Market again gives the individual the opportunity to compete . . . free from government intervention (corruption) . . . Privatization is about governments getting money from corps for protection or Corporatism.

Hope that explains beyond my previous posts . . .

reply to post by solomons path


Basically, my point is that practices that would help us and are rooted in the ideals of Individualism (Free Market, Objectivism) are being thrown in with practices that are screwing us and rooted in Collectivism.

And both sides play this game, this particular piece just happens to come from the left. The right does it with Green Energy/Environmental issues, etc.

Basically, making something that is good look like it is the reason for the problems . . . ?

Originally posted by solomons path

Free Market Wiki

The most common form associated with a Free Market economy is Laissez Faire economic policy:

The laissez-faire principle expresses a preference for an absence of non-market pressures on prices and wages, such as those from government taxes, subsidies, tariffs, regulation (other than protection from coercion and theft), or government-granted or coercive monopolies.

It is very important you pay attention to the last line of the Laissez Faire description . . . "government-granted or coercive monopolies".

Privatization is the method used to subsidize corps who pay for the right to manage public land or works, such as a regions water supply or food supply . . . These corps then own the rights to this, so if you use or compete with them . . . they hold legal right to sue or have you imprisoned. I thought I gave examples in my other posts, with Monsanto actions against farmers being the most egregious currently. These corps are given subsidies, granted through government regulation a monopoly to these resources, and these rights are upheld through coercion through the FDA/DOJ to keep out private farmers and smaller companies. Privatization is a practice in Collectivism, also called Crony Capitalism, and is employed by the Progressives (Left) and the Repubs (Right) in our government. It's what is happening with roads and prisons, as well. Tax dollars build either directly or through subsidies and then the corp manages, while continuing to enjoy subsidies (support of government). See my other examples in previous posts.

Okay - I'm beginning to see your point with this definition and explaination, thank you. Where I run into trouble is your use of the term "Collectivism".

When I use the term "Collective", I mean "We the people, collectively", I'm not speaking of any ideology. And I'm confused by your usage, ....

Thinking out loud here, ...if there were a truly free market without any coersive measures then .... just how would you define the Public/Collective Wealth?.....

A truly free market, without 'non-market' influences (to a specific market segment? a market as a whole? is a cartel of producers a 'non-market' influence....??

Just how can the Public good be served by Free Market/ laissez-faire capitalization? Where in laissez-faire requires complete knowledge of any specific market or product less someone have an unfair advantage.

Cavet Emptor (Let the Buyer Beware) - is a guiding principle of laissez-faire and there can be no 'market' principle to disclose and hence the average modern 'person' is at disadvantage in any marketplace.

Free-Market/Laissez-faire (literally "let them do" - in English usage "do as one pleases" or "let them do as they will") - is a ideal principle that can never be realized because other peoples rights and property must be considered and that is where 'ideally', again, the rule of law comes in. Honestly, while it a wonderful intellectual idea to play with, it has about as much practical us as Anarchism - both cede any contest to power, but whatever measure, and by definition there goes the Free-Market.

The Free Market again gives the individual the opportunity to compete . . . free from government intervention (corruption) . . . Privatization is about governments getting money from corps for protection or Corporatism.

Hope that explains beyond my previous posts . . .

Yes it does - very much so and I haven't worked so hard on an idea in a while, thank you. It's always fun to see things in new ways and work out just what others meaning is.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Nothing about monetary policy or economics is very easy to understand and requires a great deal of abstract thought. That is the main reason most people just go along with what is reported . . . too much hassle to check the facts, so to speak. That said, no policy direction works employing stricly one style. All cultures have a certain level of Collectivism and Individualism and all economies are what is called "mixed", in practice. However, total Collectivism would be Statism or Facism. Total Collectivism, economically speaking, would be Corporatocracy. No policy/ideology is inherently "bad", but the further you get away from Individualistic policy . . . the more it helps the "elite" or those in power and the less it helps the citizen or worker.

Collectivism is not simply "being part of the group", which is to some extent necessary to all humans, it's a practice of control - I'll put the main points I'm tying to get at:

There are two main objections to collectivism from the ideas of liberal individualism. One is that collectivism stifles individuality and diversity by insisting upon a common social identity, such as nationalism or some other group focus. The other is that collectivism is linked to statism and the diminution of freedom when political authority is used to advance collectivist goals

Rand's views on this and why it makes no sense to add her to the practice of Privatization:

Ayn Rand, creator of the philosophy of Objectivism and a particularly vocal opponent of collectivism, argued that it led to totalitarianism. She argued that "collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group," and that "throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good." She further claimed that "horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by altruists who justify themselves by the common good."[14] (The "altruists" Rand refers to are not those who practice simple benevolence or charity, but rather those who believe in Auguste Comte's ethical doctrine of altruism which holds that there is "a moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good.").[15]

Privatization under these policies of control:

Privatization, also spelled privatisation, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operate for a profit or to a non-profit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management

So basically, a federally funded (through taxes and gov borrowing) program is turned over to a corporation and they can now turn a profit for shareholders, as well as having complete legal control of the entity. Yet, it is still funded through gov subsidies (our taxes) and tax breaks for the corp.

Free Market doesn't mean free of market influences . . . it means free of excessive state intervention through subsidies, tax, tariff, regulation. It is a myth that this is what corps want. Corps benefit more from excessive regs, taxes, subsidies because it pushes the little guy out and creates monopolies . . . That doesn't mean there should be no regulations and such, as the gov should regulate to promote fairness and tax based on the needs of the economy. However, the more regs and higher taxes . . . only the big survive as they can absorb the cost. The bigs use this power and influence in gov and the gov uses it's influence on them and we get what we have today . . . which is more like a Corporatocracy.

term used to suggest an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests. It is a generally pejorative term often used by critics of the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States. The term has been used by liberal and left-leaning critics, but also some economic libertarian critics and other political observers across the political spectrum. Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in his book The Price of Civilization. He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, big corporate money financing election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance away from workers.
The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources.

reply to post by FyreByrd


That is why I said that the author's assumptions that the practice of "Free Market" policy or the comments about Ayn Rand don't belong in the article. Even though they are right about the facts they wrote about Privatization. The author either doesn't really know about the terms/ideologies he is talking about or is hoping to see a Communist type society come about. I'm going to assume the former.

Both sides in power, in the US, are Collectivists. Whether it's the Progressives in the current admin or the Neo-Cons of Bush II, they are both trying to bring about conditions where the individual has no rights, only privilages given by the State. In Carroll Quiqley's "Tragedy and Hope" he wrote about the myth of the "Left/Right Two Party" paradigm:

The argument of two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinate and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.”

Hence, the Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPSA. It's also why both sides play along with the FED and their policies, which are strickly Keynesian.

Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek criticized Keynesian economic policies for what he called their fundamentally "collectivist" approach, arguing that such theories encourage centralized planning, which leads to malinvestment of capital, which is the cause of business cycles. Hayek also argued that Keynes's study of the aggregate relations in an economy is fallacious, as recessions are caused by micro-economic factors. Hayek claimed that what starts as temporary governmental fixes usually become permanent and expanding government programs, which stifle the private sector and civil society.

Prior to the publication of Keynes's General Theory, mainstream economic thought was that the economy existed in a state of general equilibrium, meaning that the economy naturally consumes whatever it produces because the needs of consumers are always greater than the capacity of the economy to satisfy those needs. This perception is reflected in Say's Law[5] and in the writing of David Ricardo,[6] which is that individuals produce so that they can either consume what they have manufactured or sell their output so that they can buy someone else's output. This perception rests upon the assumption that if a surplus of goods or services exists, they would naturally drop in price to the point where they would be consumed.

Sorry for the length . . . but, as I said, these issues are very complex and most people are not taught anything about them . . . on purpose, I might add. And, I'm certainly no "expert" myself or I would probably work for the Council on Foreign Relations.

reply to post by solomons path


My post in this thread about Liberalism goes over some of the concepts I touched on too . . .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't forget insurance companies. Not too long ago the majority of insurance companies were non-profit or mutual companies. A mutual company is owned by it's policy holders, thus the end of year profits were returned to the policy holders, basically reducing their cost of insurance. They all went private and since then our insurance/medical costs have risen astronomically.

Samething by bringing corporations into collaboration with universities.

We have let greed take over the world.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Don't forget insurance companies. Not too long ago the majority of insurance companies were non-profit or mutual companies. A mutual company is owned by it's policy holders, thus the end of year profits were returned to the policy holders, basically reducing their cost of insurance. They all went private and since then our insurance/medical costs have risen astronomically.

Samething by bringing corporations into collaboration with universities.

We have let greed take over the world.

I gave you a star for that post, for in premise you are correct. However, I will disagree about your claim they went "private".

Mutual companies were actually considered "private" companies, as they weren't publicly traded. The change you are refering to is that these mutuals became proprietary insurance companies, where the profits went to shareholders in the company. So, in essence they went from private (mutal) to public (shareholders) companies. Not the other way around. It would be the same as a family-owned business turning into a corporation. Private is denoting who makes the decisions and who can "buy" in, which in the case of the mutuals were only the partners and policy-holders . . . not the market, other corporations, or government, as in public companies.

It's the myth of Collectivists (i.e. Socialists) that Corporations et al are "private business" . . . again to make the "people" think the gov is not on the side of corporations or they don't benefit from the policies socialism.

It's been going on for so long in the US, since at least the time of FDR, that most people today can't understand the difference even when you draw them a diagram. Programming is hard to overturn when you've been raised in it.