Crony Capitalism - The American Economy is Not a Free-Market Economy

WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp

 

I'm going to ignore your remark because you were the one who dismissed a tribal source on the subject of land ownership to perpetuate your own dogmatic belief.

The closest that we have in concepts towards a communal land is "the commons". Basically, the idea of shared resources that are not owned by are used by all members of society. I can see the overall value in terms of preserving those common resources for all and its longevity in terms of preserving those commons; however, I'm really loathe to say that the concept of land ownership should be abolished. Our world view in Western society just is not conducive to it. As a society, we're more prone to compete with the Jones into terms of wealth accumulation. Put us on the commons and we'd rape the land simply to compete with each other. In fact, that's what we've been doing, isn't it? It's the tragedy of the commons. At least with private land ownership, then you reap what you sow and should your actions be felt on another's private property in so much that it damages it, then they are allowed the opportunity for civil recourse. Personally, I think that's the best we can do so no, I would say that private land ownership for our specific segment of society is most likely the best solution for it.

That's what I was getting at with the 'abdication through failure to husband properly' comment. BTW, I really didn't mean to insult you, I have blackfeet ancestry and believe I do understand what you were getting at. I just didn't think that was a productive battle to pick.

To bring it all back to the topic of the thread, I think we all agree that how this is working is not working. My assertion is that individual liberty and private property are the pillars of freedom. The main threat to that freedom is the government and its pseudo-private sector allies which monopolize and commandeer the resources that might otherwise be competed for in the free market.

reply to post by greencmp


Blackfoot is not Navajo.

However, it is the role of the government to balance the needs between the two groups of haves and have nots. That's why the House of Representatives was created to represent the greater majority and the Senate was more likely to be comprised of the wealthy, educated and more temperate land owners in my probably shoddy attempt to paraphrase Madison. These two forces were to basically work out legislation that would balance the interests of both the haves and have nots.

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. James Madison, Federalist #10

If there was inequality, which there was, back in 1789 when that was written, then of course there is inequality today and it will have worsened. Stratification and concretion of social class was an inevitability under the assumption that wealth can be used to generate more wealth. Wealth translates to power in our society. I don't see it that the reason why we no longer have a free market is because of governmental involvement. I see it as the free market has disappeared due to the natural accumulation of wealth and power without check. People are more likely to recognize Kraft over Annie's because one has been around longer and has had plenty of time and money to assure that it became a household name. The death of the free market was a foregone conclusion.

One of the earliest forms of a corporation was the chartered company. These companies were awarded a governmental charter (still a practice via state government today in the form of a corporate charter) but had a term associated with them. They were not "immortal". This was one of the things that changed within 30 years after the ratification of the US Constitution, as the Supreme Court determined that corporations could become immortal and inviolable, able to accumulate wealth and property in so long as they managed to stay afloat. A company that can spend up to a billion on marketing is going to be louder in the public sphere than a company which is just starting up with a far more limited budget. That's what created the barriers to a free market.

As far as I can tell, we've come to the point where the government is largely theirs now, not ours. The balance of the control over government between business and society has been imbalanced through multiple key Supreme Court decisions that have allowed highly private and monied interests inordinate power within our government, which moves to assure that the free market is crushed.

xuenchen

mzinga
I think it is much deeper than this. I'm not quite sure what the solution is, but Capitalism has lead to the modern day decline of this country. You think our country is run by the people, but it is not. It is run by large corporate America. They govern us, enslave us, and we all just play along.

Could it be a variation of Marxist principals ?

Could it be that "Progressive Corporatism" is using Marxist 'theories' and applying selective agendas to control governments as well as populations ?

Perhaps the "Ten Planks" are being implemented.

It may go beyond known 'borders'.

Hmmm.

There is something in here that stinks of truth. I cannot say that there is a complete consistency by any stretch but, I hadn't thought of comparing the communist to the corporate manifesto.

Thanks for the interesting perspective, food for thought.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Europe was once much more like the tribes that occupied the territories now occupied by the U.S., but civilization invaded, and changed everything.

Europeans once worshiped trees, and a man was King only as long as the people wanted him to be king. Cities were for the most part below 10,000 people. Wave after wave of invasion from the East, forced Europeans to become far more organized, for their own survival.

Colonization was actually a response to defend against aggression. It is the nature of the world, if not the Brits, than most certainly the Spanish, or some Eastern civilization.

Most of the earliest pioneer wee fleeing civilization more than anything.

What it boils down to, is that there are aggressive selfish people who want more than they deserve, and they don't care what they do to anyone, or anything to get what they want. Opportunists, parasites, and predators that hide within the framework of civilization, and mess everything up for everyone else. This is the sad fact of civilization.

There is no such thing as a free market economy. There never has been, and there never will be. Free Market economics is unrealistic, idealistic, nonsense. All attempt to create a Free Market Economy always backfire, resulting in a economy like we have today, were the International Banking Corporations wind up running everyone's lives, and stealing the fruits of labor from the people who actually work and produce the goods and services, so that a group of elites can rule over everyone else.

Stop listening to the ignorance put out by right wing talk radio shows, and wake up to the reality that you have been had by these con artists.

reply to post by greencmp

There is something in here that stinks of truth. I cannot say that there is a complete consistency by any stretch but, I hadn't thought of comparing the communist to the corporate manifesto.

Thanks for the interesting perspective, food for thought.

Substitute some references to "The State" with "The Corporation" and it opens many new 'interpretations'.

The similarities are astounding.

Many people think that Marx was 'designing' the economic model for modern corporations, not government.

The 'government' is actually part of the corporation, and so is 'society'.

Many of Marx's social designs apply to the management/employee structures of corporations.

It's complicated. It goes beyond the 10 planks.

reply to post by poet1b


Yep, that's pretty much what I learned at my School of Business Administration and not from lifetime professors but former and current business executives of some fairly well known companies. The conditions for a free market to work are so outside of what is possible that it is, in fact, impossible to have a truly free market. The largest issue being that perfect competition is impossible. It also should be noted that every single one of these professors stated that capitalism has significant and substantial failures that absolutely need to be addressed. We need a new form of capitalism that addresses the specific failures of our current form in a meaningful way and fast. Some of my professors might as well been holding boards up that said "the end of the world is nigh!".

To understand some of these issues, I'd ask people to consider these questions:

1. Currently, maximizing production of a manufacturing facility is considered to be the most cost efficient method of accounting. Let's say you own a pen company and you know you will sell 35,000 pens this year but to maximize the cost efficiency of your company, it's more profitable to make 50,000 pens even if you don't sell the remaining 15,000. What are the issues with that kind of accounting?

2. Maximizing one's capacity takes place on a number of levels in production. Basically, if you have a machine that is capable of producing 20,000 units in a day, then it's logical to set that production level to at an optimal 20,000 units so that it's operation is maximized and profitable. However, machines are not the only area that have an optimal expectation of performance placed on that. Human counterparts of labor do, too. Amalgamated Giant Product Shipping warehouses (servicing Amazon) also set a level of maximized optimal performance upon their human components. The assumption used is that their human employees will be operating at the maximum and desired efficiency all day. What's the problem with that?

3. The maximization of production and cutting of costs is what has been determined to be the root of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the Macondo Well rupture that did unimaginable damage to various industries and the environment. When does maximizing profits go too far? According to Milton Friedman, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to increase its profits". Under Friedman's assumption, BP was simply fulfilling their sole social responsibility. Is that okay?

reply to post by WhiteAlice

3. The maximization of production and cutting of costs is what has been determined to be the root of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the Macondo Well rupture that did unimaginable damage to various industries and the environment. When does maximizing profits go too far? According to Milton Friedman, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to increase its profits". Under Friedman's assumption, BP was simply fulfilling their sole social responsibility. Is that okay?

Arriving at tainted 'conclusions' by way of assumptive deductions is dangerous.

BP's 'assumptive deductions' of maximizing profits resulted in losses.

All it took in that case was one or two narcissists and psychopaths.

Were the people making the 'decisions' actually in their right minds ?

reply to post by WhiteAlice

2. Maximizing one's capacity takes place on a number of levels in production. Basically, if you have a machine that is capable of producing 20,000 units in a day, then it's logical to set that production level to at an optimal 20,000 units so that it's operation is maximized and profitable. However, machines are not the only area that have an optimal expectation of performance placed on that. Human counterparts of labor do, too. Amalgamated Giant Product Shipping warehouses (servicing Amazon) also set a level of maximized optimal performance upon their human components. The assumption used is that their human employees will be operating at the maximum and desired efficiency all day. What's the problem with that?

The people may be the problem.

Maximized production often leads to lower market prices.

People then resort to minimum production in order to create a false shortage.

False shortages lead to frenzied demand cycles and artificially high prices.

Artificially high prices sometimes create artificial bankruptcies.

reply to post by xuenchen


Yep, BP assumed risks in their profit maximization, gambled, and lost. But in their little profit gamble came a stunning loss of life, huge amounts of ecological damage (dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico for instance), damages to fishing industries, food supplies, and more. Not all CEO's are psychopaths, narcissists, or sociopaths but the very form of capitalism that we operate under is one where such individuals are the most likely to succeed because of a general ruthlessness or, as I call it, "goldfish" mentality, that leads them to have that ability to focus solely on the maximization of profits with little regard to risks. I know this very well. Many who know my sister would say that she is either a sociopath or a psychopath. She is also a VP of finance for an international corporate giant. Even our own mother fears her a bit.

This kind of preference for a certain type of individual having the capability of being more successful due to a ruthless dismissal of risk isn't even limited to a major corporation. Our father was the owner of a mid-sized privately held corporation. His cost cutting methodologies to maximize his own profits led him to become listed as being one of the top 100 water polluters in the US. I remember being a teen and having one of the teachers at my school informing me of how his church prays for my father's soul every Sunday because he is surely going to go to hell for his business practices. The ability to maximize profits without regard to externalities and without remorse is a little too good for profits when that is the sole social responsibility of business. The preference tends to be to adopt risk.

crazyewok
Complete unregulated free market led to the Great depression.

false. It was due to central banking practices. Do some research.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Central banking practices in the twenties were a direct result of the fed gov not enforcing laws created to prevent fraud, which is free market policies.

That is the problem with the whole free market scam. Eliminate the rules that keep the bankers from abusing the privileges granted by banking charters, and the bankers will steal their customers blind, which what is going on right now in our current economy.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


I would say that it was most likely a combination of both. Iow, both you and poet are right. The Federal Reserve was involved, including in the aiding and abetting of it:

First came the deregulation of the derivatives market. The derivatives in question in the housing crisis were credit swaps. The particular flavor of deregulation involving credit swaps and banks was that banks no longer had to set aside monies in the case of potential losses or pay offs. The forcing of the banks to set aside money for this previously was to reduce the threat to deposit accounts to creditors for any of those losses. By removing this barrier, which was being pushed by the Fed and the Treasury Sec, it allowed for unchecked risk taking to occur as the banks were not limited to how many credit swaps they could involve themselves in or even any sort of quality assurance. That lead to robo-signing practices at the lending office which was, like in the case of Countrywide, encouraged so that the bank had more credit swaps to peddle.

When the swaps started going toxic, the Federal Reserve was the one who, as the Bloomberg article put it, "secretly engineered the bailout" and hid documents pertaining to such deals involving Goldman Sachs:

A potentially more important development slipped by with less notice, Bloomberg Markets reports in its April issue. Representative Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, placed into the hearing record a five-page document itemizing the mortgage securities on which banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA had bought $62.1 billion in credit-default swaps from AIG.

These were the deals that pushed the insurer to the brink of insolvency -- and were eventually paid in full at taxpayer expense. The New York Fed, which secretly engineered the bailout, prevented the full publication of the document for more than a year, even when AIG wanted it released.Bloomberg

They're both guilty.

poet1b

There is no such thing as a free market economy. There never has been, and there never will be. Free Market economics is unrealistic, idealistic, nonsense. All attempt to create a Free Market Economy always backfire, resulting in a economy like we have today, were the International Banking Corporations wind up running everyone's lives, and stealing the fruits of labor from the people who actually work and produce the goods and services, so that a group of elites can rule over everyone else.

Stop listening to the ignorance put out by right wing talk radio shows, and wake up to the reality that you have been had by these con artists.

It is my contention in this thread that it is the special interests of state supported monopolies that has denied the possibility of a truly free market.

reply to post by greencmp


The monopolies developed in spite of government, not as a result of government.

www.linfo.org...

There is no possibility of creating a free market, just as there is no possibility of creating a communistic society. I don't believe either system is supported by human nature.

poet1b
reply to post by greencmp

 

The monopolies developed in spite of government, not as a result of government.

www.linfo.org...

There is no possibility of creating a free market, just as there is no possibility of creating a communistic society. I don't believe either system is supported by human nature.

I am not sure why it is so difficult to convey the fact that free markets are not 'created'.

The free market is the natural state of humanity ungoverned.

reply to post by greencmp

The free market is the natural state of humanity ungoverned.

That is also communism, as claimed by the communists.

I think you are both right.

poet1b
reply to post by greencmp

 

The free market is the natural state of humanity ungoverned.

That is also communism, as claimed by the communists.

I think you are both right.

I disagree, government is a creation of society and as such could not have preceded it.

To be honnest at the end of the day only care about these thing witha economic system:

Good Social mobility
Level playing field and laws regardless of Rich or poor or Big buisness or small buisness
Ability for hard work and inteligence to pay off no matter whats ones backgrounds
Low corruption
Low poentialy for abuse
Ability to get vital needs and services were they are needed.
Repect for saftey
High employment
Respect for the enviroment around
Low poverty and human suffering.
Sustainability.
Makes the most people happy.
Social justice IE The bankers and politicians that killed the econemy should have been the ones who sufferd. They should have been striped of all there personal assets as fines and banned from holding any positions of resposiblity again like why way you wouldnt give a pedophile a job with kids.


I dont care how the above is meet. Be it 100% Capitlism, 100% communism or a mix.
I dont care about the top 1% happyness, I care about the 99% happness. Why should we concentrate on a system that only makes a small minority happy?
And to be honnest I dont care about the bottom 1% either (IE the lazy and job shy).

And to be honnest I dont know why anyone should care how the perfect system is meet as long as it "works" and makes the most people content.

crazyewok
To be honnest at the end of the day only care about these thing witha economic system:

Good Social mobility
Level playing field and laws regardless of Rich or poor or Big buisness or small buisness
Ability for hard work and inteligence to pay off no matter whats ones backgrounds
Low corruption
Low poentialy for abuse
Ability to get vital needs and services were they are needed.
Repect for saftey
High employment
Respect for the enviroment around
Low poverty and human suffering.
Sustainability.
Makes the most people happy.
Social justice IE The bankers and politicians that killed the econemy should have been the ones who sufferd. They should have been striped of all there personal assets as fines and banned from holding any positions of resposiblity again like why way you wouldnt give a pedophile a job with kids.


I dont care how the above is meet. Be it 100% Capitlism, 100% communism or a mix.
I dont care about the top 1% happyness, I care about the 99% happness. Why should we concentrate on a system that only makes a small minority happy?
And to be honnest I dont care about the bottom 1% either (IE the lazy and job shy).

And to be honnest I dont know why anyone should care how the perfect system is meet as long as it "works" and makes the most people content.

edit on 9-10-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

While I can't guarantee every outcome that you desire, I can assure you that a truly free market (not what we have now) would not allow the survival of over-leveraged badly managed (or worse) corporations to be saved with the use of tax payer dollars. They would be allowed to go bankrupt.

I believe that the free market is the best of all options for a variety of reasons which I can defend with an array of intellectual arguments. Without having an overly academic conversation here and now, I can say that the evidence is there to be seen throughout history.

Not only do the positive attributes of an unplanned free market far exceed the record of every planned economic system but, the unavoidable negative implications of every planned economic system are even better documented.

The only specific claim I will make in summary is that more people have been raised out of poverty in free markets than any planned economy.