If we really want to cut welfare, we should start with corporations- they’re by far the biggest welfare recipient in the US.
the biggest welfare recipient and ones that pay the largest tax bills…
-Imp
Corporations have many, many tax dodges. Many large corporations pay virtually no income tax whatever. The disengenous part is to find corporate welfare to be just swell but to bitch when those on the bottom rung are allowed to rummage thru the scraps. If society only serves the top 10% you’ll see the Revolution you’ve been predicting, but not the way you expect.
Right, but this is all backed up by “human nature” remember. It’s not unfair, it just happens to be what ought to be. 
Welfare is better than Illfare.
It seems to me that the problem here is the government, they’re the ones giving the grants and taking taxes. If a large corporation can get a large grant, it would be stupid not to try. Without large government; corporations would not lobby them or gain unfair advantages by using them.
I don’t believe in the “human nature”, but this is the beauty of a non socialised society. No one is trying to change anyone’s nature through politics or society. Looking at history, I would say that trying to change people has lead to disaster. So this must be how some humans act by their nature as no one is forcing them to act that way and not everyone does act in that way.
I’m not naive enough to expect them to be honest out it. The difference between promoting growth and creating socialism is simply who’s ox is being gored. But we have a lot of socialism in our system, and that’s not likely to change, so we should at least stop shitting ourselves that the markets are free. $700B bailout, anyone?
Ultimately, when an entire society subscribes to an economic ideology and all work together in order to make its implementation sustainable it is, in effect, a socialist system no matter what name we give it. The central problem is always on how to sustain a moral administration.
Capitalism encourages individualism, which in turn requires a very high degree of personal integrity.
The pool of liquid capital in any society represents the value of the GNP. Capitalism allows private individuals to dictate how that money is invested. Printed promisary notes are an artificial representation of human effort that can easily undermine reality and distort one’s sense of personal integrity. One forgets that one is dealing with people’s lives. Distortion sets in when the State encourages a trading system that allows those with a few excess dollars to gamble on the stock market. It gets volatile when it is deregulated and the State removes its retraining hand. That is asking too much of personal integrity. Gamblers want the competition to lose, not improve their hands. Thus the original ideaology of investment towards creative growth via healthy competition, inevitably degenerates into betting on the failure of all competition. All gambling eventually gavitates towards a single winner. Such a system only works while enough players are still winning. Gambling is a highly addictive pass-time. When an entire society gets hooked on it, either on the stock market amiong the wealthy or via a national lottery system among the poor, trust in the future is based more on false hope than honest effort, and moral integrity inevitably suffers.
Thus in the end capitalism is self defeating. Instread of encouraging team effort it ends up quashing it.
One would then think that a communist ideology that discourages individualism and encourages collective team effort, would end up on the global stage as a hands on winner.
Communsim failed on two counts of moral disintegration.
The basic problem in Marxism was the denigration of religious observances - which, no matter how cynical one may view it, never-the-less sets an absolute standard of morality that cannot be argued with, even if most workers could not attain to it. By making a corruptible government set the example of goodness, it led inevitably to corruption of party power.
The second failure was that it did not try to set a peaceful international example. It took on the West in a dangerous gamble of Russian roulette with nuclear guns. The gamble demonized the ideal of team effort and eventually bankrupted them. That together with state corruption took the heart out of the communist worker and the system failed.
Like communsim, we too now stand on the brink of system collapse. The heart is being systematically taken out of the capitalist worker. Quadrupling the gas prices sucked his savings and frightened him about the future. Then his house is being foreclosed. His retirement fund has been devalued. Out-sourcing has put millions of jobs on the line. CEO’s who claim that their input is a thousand times more valuable than the average worker is profoundly insulting.
Reckless gambling has made the chips close to worthless. Fears of global environemental collapse add to the pressure. National motivation is suffering.
It is hard to say how speedily we can correct ourselves, if at all. Obama is talking about a whole new form of green-based economic recovery. Sustainable energy production, cleaning up the environment, a more ergonomic infrastructure, better health care and education etc … which theoretically should create millions of new jobs and put us back on track. But none of that is really capitalist friendlly.
All of Obama’s new deal requires massive funding over the long term and nobody knows where the money is coming from. Capitalism prefers short term investement, quick-product turn-over, planned obsolescence and high consummerism.
As far as I can see, looking down the road, though i have been roundly laughed at for suggesting it, is to gradually wean ourselves off a money-based/ownership, sytem with all its artificial barriers and place far more stock on the evolutionary behavioral imperatives imprinted in our specie’s DNA.
As stated, ultimately every system relies on morality. People are mostly kind-hearted and hardworking and highly creative when given the opportunity. We should not allow a minority of bad apples to determine how we seek our collective happiness.
If we can paint a clear enough picture of the world we would most like to live in, and lay out a pragmatic, step by step plan of how we can get there - if we all focus on the same goal, a more sustainable and friendlier existence is not impossible. There can no question that there is masses of amount of work to do, and we have a huge reservoirs of workers looking for jobs, and the technology is there at our fingertips.
The barriers in front of us are purely ideological. If communism has proved to be immoral. And then capitalism follows suit. You tell me what will motivate a global workforce, if not a moral standard based on universal custodianship and sustainable planet management?
How we view the world and respond to the ideological mores of our cultures boils down to child indoctrination.
The same child born in Russia, the USA or Sweden, would respond in kind to each of them and would fight to the death any seeming threat by a counter ideology, even though all three of those cultures cultivate the the same basic moral values of kindness, sharing, chores, crafstmanship, courage, love, creativity and intellectual agility.
Any final answer to the world economic crisis would require the end of divisive and primitive ideological indoctrinations and a concerted effort to rear the global child as a future planet manager.
Since all parents have been deeply indoctrinated since birth into their particular ideological mind-set, a mass change of the next generation’s consciousness cannot be accomplished by reason alone. Existing circumstances have to reach a point of deterioration on a global scale that are severe and lasting enough for all cultures to seriously question the value of their economic ideologies. Only then can the mass deprogramming begin and more holistic ideas on how to effectively manage a planet in a sustainable manner be given a rational hearing.
Today I saw Bush on TV talking about the bailout of the Big 3. He said ‘I’ve Abandoned Free Market Principles To Save The Free Market System’. Hmmm…that sounds a bit like trying to put out a house fire with a can of kerosene.
I saw an article on CNN that was discussing Alan Greenspan’s evolving view, that he put too much trust in the “efficiency of the market.”
I don’t think market efficiency takes into consideration greed.
Actually he is trying to fight fire with fire. Problem is that paper money, twice burned, leaves only ashes. He is left with Hobson’s choice. His mandate is not big enough to move off in a totally new direction.
He should take the bull by the horns and decalare an all-out economic war on poverty. He should print zillions of government-backed money, effectively devaluing all existing dollars and neutralizing the national debt. Then invest that new money domestically on a total make-over the national infrastructure. Corporations should be put on war-time emergency producion and pour all their resources into installing an entirely new national energy grid; new transportation system; build new vertical ergonomic cities out of the flood planes and hurricane alleys; start high-rise indoor farming. He should insist on free health and education for all - employing every single hand willing to work for an entire generation. At the end of that, the worth of that same dollar on the international market-place will be priceless.
Easy, MM- Bush only has a month left. I don’t think he’ll manage to completely reduce the country to rubble now, seeing as he didn’t manage over the last 7 years 11 months. But Bush does seem to love that line of thought…after all, he destroyed the Constitution to save, eliminated freedom in the US to give it to the world, etc etc. In the month he has left I doubt he’ll tackle poverty, seeing as how his only concern up til now has been helping corporations pick our pockets.
You can’t as a practical matter print your way out the woods with the printing press. Creating more worthless paper will only lead to rampant inflation, and we can all enjoy the old “taking a wheelbarrow of money to the store to buy a loaf of bread.”
Actually he is trying to fight fire with fire. His problem is that if he does get new money to do all the national restructuring he wants to do, it will not be nearly enough. Anybody initiating a new business enterprize knows that starting off under-capitalized is a sure-fire recipe for failure.
It is a pity he never got a big enough mandate to do exactly what needs to be done.
As his economic advisor it would tell him to declare an all out war on national poverty. Begin by ordering the Fed to print zillions of new dollars, This would effectively devalue all existing dollars and temporaily neutralize the national debt. It would instruct our creditors to have faith in the American worker and hold onto their devalued dollars. Large Corporations and private firms would be put on war-time production footing and instructed to pour all their resources into a complete make-over of the national infrastructure. Brand new energy grid designed for renewables; Brand new ergonomic vertical cities built outside flood-planes and hurricane alleys. Brand new transportation system. High-rise indoor farming. Free health care and free education for every citizen. Encourage a global stewardship corps of young graduates to travel abroad and help undeveloped nations get up to speed. Ensure full national employment for a thirty year war.
At the end of that time. the new American dollar would be priceless. And ther money once owed would be repaid with compound interest with no harm to anyone.
Socialism failed because people voluntary gave it up, even if it was working fine. Just look at the Kabutz in Israel. There productivity was high and people had enough to eat etc… people slowly started to abandon the idea of socialism because they wanted to own things. In Britain 1945-1980, pretty much all of the main industries were socialsed, the biggest mistake ever, productivity fell and wages went up. It became difficult to control the greed of the workers.
I think that Socialism has it’s place. NASA, Health Care, Subsidised drugs ( those which would cure rare disease ) etc…
Capitalism does not encourage anything, that is it’s main point.
Assuming a fair game that is mathematically impossible.
I don’t understand this. Surely capitalism requires selfish cooperation, prisoners dilemma etc…
For me the main problem with Capitalism is marketing, or more its use of psychology. There should be laws preventing companies selling stuff based on self-esteem. They could still advertise but only based on need. At the end of the day though, people need to realise they are responsible for their own lives. People have become too dependent.
“Capitalism” is fairly protean, but it still tends to impart values. Game theory being just one of them. There is also plenty of evidence to show people will choose altruism over selfishness.
I agree, I think that you’re better off being altruistic in long lasting relations. Take the example of bats, they share their food with other bats who for some reason did not manage to get food that night. They only do it on the expectation that they will get some food back if they don’t do well one night.
right… humans are born good and giving…
I have this bridge in new york for sale…
-Imp
Do you mean me? I don’t think humans are born good and giving but engage in tit for tat.
I don’t understand the bridge thing.
in the examples of “altruism” given, the “selfless” actions are rewarded thereby making them not selfless at all, but rather investments for future payment.
trust your mechanic…
-Imp
Well, it could be semantics but I understood that altruism is behavior that is not beneficial to the giver. So if I help you fix your roof, then is that altruism? Even if I expect you someday to help me fix mine.
At least I did not say selfless but “Surely capitalism requires selfish cooperation”