On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:23:20 -0800, ta wrote: >> IOW, it's not the *theory* of capitalism that is flawed, but rather the >> *implementation*? I agree with what I see as your intention. And... >> Isn't it possible that the system that has evolved is not really >> capitalism any longer? Is the real and correct point, imo. I believe it is the capitalist theory of today that is flawed. A 'system' any system may be right or best at one certain point or in one set of conditions but not the best for another, if nor just wrong. Capitalism, today, is not the same as 'free competitive market- ism' (substitute a better term). Capitalism makes money from money itself not necessarily investments in anything tangible or with real value, so today's capitalism is not necessarily yesterday's industrialism. Maybe 'Corporatism' or 'Financialism' better describe things. [So many words still used carry conceptual baggage left behind by the reality of the day, right?] The fundamental readjustment that is being made no matter what one calls it, is not long ago the earth, in just the US, was seen as holding vast nearly infinite resources. Anyone who wanted could own some of them by drive, ambition, education etc. It has moved from the pioneer individual in colonial times up to and through the mega-corps of today. But, gee the earth is round, it is not an endless plan of unlimited land and water. Big earth resulted in big owners like big nations. Now, every inch of land has been declared owned by something or another. This is very new and a very stark practical economic 'reality'. The reality in denial is: big is constructive up to a point, there is a sweet spot, then it becomes destructive outside of that. Bigger is not better as an absolute. Bigger, as an absolute, is death. Ya get big, the market becomes saturated, ya use your big to buyout smaller and get bigger. After a while your growth curve starts to flat line yet again. Diversify. Buy up more. It never can end. Competition is good only because you can buy M&A them out. Capitalism and Wall Street still operate from "bigger is better" and 'too big to fail'. They are essentially economic dinosaurs. It should follow that out of their decay and slime a more rational economic being will evolve. If one puts a name to it with the words in use today, like 'socialism', it is very likely wrong. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Nov 26, 11:23 pm, ta wrote: >> >> Well, that's really the heart of the question I'm asking -- is there >> really genuine competition when there are only a small handful of >> really big players. >> I have a pet theory that if a market is dominated by five or fewer then there is always collusion. If dominated by twenty or more then there is never collusion. With six to nineteen there may or may not be collusion. Collusion effortlessly increases profitability. It is in the interests of the organizations to collude, so they will unless there are so many it becomes unworkable. >> So you're saying capitalism discourages competition? Isn't it possible >> that it's not capitalism per se that is flawed, but rather the human >> beings that are twisting the rules of capitalism to the extent that it >> can no longer be recognized as capitalism? >> I'm saying that collusion is the obvious course under capitalism because it maximizes profit. This is what a capitalist system will do unless some greater force prevents it. All this stuff they tell you about competition is just window dressing. I'll go further and all these "business principles" you read about are but cover. The ruling principle of big business is to make as much money as possible with as little effort as possible. All that talk and those learned papers are products of a system built to promote this goal. Quite successfully too. I'm impressed at the effectiveness of business in convincing the public that their malarkey has substance and business is in pursuit of fairness and freedom. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Dec 2, 7:39 am, "*Anarcissie*" wrote: >> On Dec 1, 6:45 pm, Les Cargill wrote: > >>> > *Anarcissie* wrote: >> >>>> > > On Nov 29, 1:57 pm, Les Cargill wrote: >>> >>>>> > >> ta wrote: >>>> >>>>>> > >>> On Nov 27, 12:32 pm, ZerkonXXXX wrote: >>>> >>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >>> I don't disagree with the crux of what you are saying, but I don't see >>>>>> > >>> it as a "systemic" problem. Rather, it's a human problem . . . as long >>>>>> > >>> as people keep wanting more, more, more, then the trend of "bigger is >>>>>> > >>> better" will continue (i.e., globalization). >>>> >>>>> > >> But the thing that tells people they can't have >>>>> > >> more and more is price. Other than that, there's >>>>> > >> not a good way for people to tell. > >>>>> > >> The scary part is that I've been saying for years that >>>>> > >> there's consumer fatigue in America. Irony-enhancedly, >>>>> > >> other countries must pick up the slack. If that >>>>> > >> fails, who knows what the world looks like? > >>>>> > >> Almost nobody alive today remembers a time before American >>>>> > >> style consumerism. The psychology of consumerism is to >>>>> > >> have advertisers create demand through the mechanism >>>>> > >> of willing suspension of disbelief. If *that* is failing... > >>>> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/business/media/01carr.html > >>>> > > 'Even consumption may have limits. Mr. Cohen said that in his 32 years >>>> > > interviewing consumers in malls during the holiday season, he had >>>> > > never heard what he did this year. ÎéÎíPeople really have no idea what >>>> > > they want,ÎéÎí he said.' > >>> > Wow! Thanks for the link. don't get me wrong - it's >>> > probably a bogus hypothesis but even a slight >>> > decline in the increase of the rate of consumption >>> > would scare a lot of people. > >> I like the idea of consumer fatigue. As I imagine you are >> aware, there is a theory that under the present economic >> regime, called "consumer capitalism" by the theorists, the >> working class first labors to produce stuff and then is >> harried to the malls to spend their free time buying the >> stuff and consuming it. In other words, consumption is >> part of their labor. To philosophers and aesthetes, >> much of the stuff they buy and consume seems >> superfluous, if not offensive and destructive, and hardly >> worth the time either to produce or buy. (But perhaps >> this is merely elitism.) In any case, if there is anything >> true in this picture, one could expect the consumers >> to grow tired of the labor of consuming and to slack >> off. I recall that one of the original phases of the >> Great Depression was called "the buyers' strike", >> and the Great Depression occurred not long after >> consumer capitalism took hold in North America >> and Western Europe. Over and over people write that they WANT the system to collapse. They see it is working contrary to their interests and want to restart. I feel this is important. Not only that, the US has frightened the world to such a degree that many in a position to do something about it would like to see its wealth greatly reduced. Finally, there is more concern about the ecology than the financial crisis. Government action to contain the ecological crisis has been practically nil, contributing greatly to lack of confidence in The System. I think I am not exaggerating in that the economic system is widely considered a mortal danger to humanity. In short, the economic system has lost popular support. The US bailout has greatly contributed to this. Many aren't going to do their duty and go out and buy on credit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "*Anarcissie*" wrote: >> It's not really a conspiracy theory to notice the >> effects of the FRB on the world's economy. The fact >> that Congress has the _theoretical_ power to dissolve >> it does not mean it has the actual power to dissolve >> it or even control it. The idea that the fed runs the US tends to turn into the theory that Jews run the world, a classic conspiracy theory. But the bailout demonstrates the supremacy of the Fed over the voters. Government is controlled by government, of which the Fed is a very powerful part, rather than controlled by voters. Everyone who voted for hope and change, and is seeing government as usual, should be realizing this now. The bailout was a Fed initiative. Bush compliantly went along with it, even though socializing the financial sector is radically contrary to his ideology and the ideology of those who voted for him. Obama is compliantly going along with it, even though handouts to the failed rich to keep them rich is radically contrary to his ideology and the ideology of those who voted for him. Voters are notoriously prone to vote for easy money, and the bubble was in substantial part pandering to the voters. The affirmative action easy money for hispanics was 100% pandering to the voters. But the bailout is contemptuously pissing on the voters, both right and left, showing who is the boss. ------------------------ We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Dec 2, 3:06 pm, James A. Donald wrote: >> "*Anarcissie*" wrote: > >>> > It's not really a conspiracy theory to notice the >>> > effects of the FRB on the world's economy. The fact >>> > that Congress has the _theoretical_ power to dissolve >>> > it does not mean it has the actual power to dissolve >>> > it or even control it. > >> The idea that the fed runs the US tends to turn into the >> theory that Jews run the world, a classic conspiracy >> theory. But the bailout demonstrates the supremacy of >> the Fed over the voters. >> >> Government is controlled by government, of which the Fed >> is a very powerful part, rather than controlled by >> voters. Everyone who voted for hope and change, and is >> seeing government as usual, should be realizing this >> now. The bailout was a Fed initiative. Bush >> compliantly went along with it, even though socializing >> the financial sector is radically contrary to his >> ideology and the ideology of those who voted for him. >> Obama is compliantly going along with it, even though >> handouts to the failed rich to keep them rich is >> radically contrary to his ideology and the ideology of >> those who voted for him. >> >> Voters are notoriously prone to vote for easy money, and >> the bubble was in substantial part pandering to the >> voters. The affirmative action easy money for hispanics >> was 100% pandering to the voters. But the bailout is >> contemptuously pissing on the voters, both right and >> left, showing who is the boss. Some of the mortgage stuff was pandering to the poor, but as I've pointed out before, there was a bubble burgeoning and, in capitalism, money has to go somewhere. Much of the politics pushing the inflation of the various bubbles seems to have come from the well-off and the kind of people in the government who are highly solicitous of their interests. Poor- and middle-class people were actually harmed by the inflation, because houses were priced out of their range and rents also rose to some extent because landlords had to pay for bigger mortgages and could get rent from a larger renter pool. Actually, I doubt if Congress _wants_ to control the Federal Reserve Bank or have its functions performed in some other way. According to stuff I have been reading on the Net, the FRB was formed precisely to get monetary and credit issues away from Congress and other "political" arenas and place it securely in the hands of what we might call the high lords of banking and finance. These people have failed to keep their own game going. -------------------------------------------------------------------------