Naming The Problem

Dio here, not signin in
Thanks for this one C.
I gave it a glance and will return and give it the attention it calls for.

I agree there are choices. I see them.
The problem seems to be too few do not see choice.

I believe the worlds peoples operate from the deliberate dummied-down position.
I is my exercised choice to to surf the net for sites simiilar to the one you presented here, and yet for me to have a converstation about the readily found internet info is to suffer the fate in the example of "Thinkers Anonumous"
Google it

Capitalism operates on the principle of "externalizing costs"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/node/view/164">http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/node/view/164</a><br />
<br />
If a capitalist utters the phrase "it's a win-win", he's lying. Capitalism is a giant pyramid scheme, and everyone knows that the first into the pyramid stands to gain the most, and the last in can do nothing but lose. This is where "externalizing costs" comes into play. Passing off the costs makes the bottom line look good, better, best. And if those to whom the costs were passed aren't quick about passing them on in turn (or aren't aware they have been saddled with these cost), they lose.<br />
<br />
The example of Glasgow exemplifies this.<p>---<br>RickW

You guys are hilarious. How long and how hard would you guys work for nothing? You wouldn't, no human would or does, ever, it's that simple. The capitalist system best represents the way humans act in fact. Trying to fit human economic behaviour into ideological constructs will fail every time.

Socialists, environmentalists etc. and their kind should at least be honest and admit that what they really want to do is take things away from other people while at the same time telling them what to do.

Kind of like the 'new' - conservatives eh buddy? Extreme nutbars on both sides of the cloth are the same makeup. Detached from reality, and interfering with others lives. The difference is, the left sees it more for a common good - idealistic and naive, but a noble cause to aspire to while on the right - it is purely for power and profit to the individual whatever the cost to others. For the remainder, and (i feel) the majority - we see reality and what we should aspire to become - Capitalism? Yes, perhaps with a conscience, if that is possible. Watch the corporation - a fantastic documentary. If the government is willing to grant "human being" like rights to corporations then they should pay taxes and be held accountable like other real canadian "human beings".. nuff said.

As a dedicated private, as opposed to "free", enterpriser, business owner since 1957, I would like to know at what point do profits become theft? Profits are necessary for the survival of businesses, but to what level ? Profits are not earnings for work, or products, but are figures stuck on top arbitrarily, over and above real costs and incomes. Therefore PROFITS ARE A FORM OF UNILATERAL TAXATION, that can become obscene at a certain level, just as any unjustifiable benefits taken from others. Whether it is done by governments, or private businesses. Theft is theft, regardless how it is justified.

How can a person "earn" millions in a year, while overcharging the public and exploiting his/her own employees? How could Bill Gates "earn" $50 billion, or whatever? How can less than 400 people own and control 50% of the world's resources and how did they acquire them? Why does society permit it ? How can corporations justify huge financial benefits given to executives for the mass firings of employees, called "downsizings", so that their earnings can be diverted to the artificial entities of corporate shares? Do people realize that when people are fired for the reasons of income diversion, the country's and the world's economic costs automatically rise, because the real costs of the survival of the fired people are transferred on society and the environment? Is this not theft? What are the moral and legal justifications for these actions ?
It gives me real satisfaction when one of my former employees calls and says that I was the best boss they ever had and they fondly remember the times in my shops. How many corporate CEOs can say this ? What can they be proud of ? For stealing millions from the public and excuse it as the laws of capitalism ? The same reasoning as Maoists justified the horrors of their so called "Cultural Revolution" ? Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

I believe the thing about profit based mentality and "externalizing costs" is like dumping waste cause paying the fine(if you get caught) is still cheaper than processing/storing it all safely. This is aimed more at big waste producing business i believe. Capitalism is not Free Market either, as international business clearly shows.
Business and politics are boths paths to power under these circumstances, as long as we are all trying to overpower one another, we will continue with these problems in society. The ills resulting in feeding off one another...

> Profits are not earnings for work, or products, but are figures stuck on top arbitrarily, over and above real costs and incomes

I almost agreed until this point. By definition, in a free market, profits can only exist if there is a buyer willing to purchase your product for more than your fixed costs (overhead, labor, depreciation, purchase costs of raw materials, etc).

Companies enjoying extended periods of profits are typically the result of the buyer's market rewarding higher quality products after exploring the limitations involved with a lower quality product (to the point of being unusuable or unprofitable for them) from your competition. In other words, you get what you pay for (or you get paid what you're worth).

This touches on an historical essence of Americanism.

Era 1620: Govn'r Bradford, Plymouth Colony - "We are going to drop the practice of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need.' We are going to try the idea of 'to each according to merit.'".

That's right - the famous Marxist slogan was actually written by the Pilgrims! Then they were forced to modify it so the lazy ones wouldn't milk the system.

Your other points encompass the possibilties of socialism (a wonderful theory, except for basic human nature) to the inner workings of global economies, to supposed universal moral truths - as such, it might be seen as an abuse of such a small space by posting them at once, let alone trying to address them.

Really, these thoughts probably shouldn't be jumbled together to be inflicted on others in such a restricted space. If you can confine your comments to a single point, I may be able to respond coherently. Eh, haverom?

Very well........

"Costs can not be cut, only transferred on other sectors, or the environment."

You've read too much of Milton Friedman and now believe the garbage he was selling with his "Free to Choose" nonsense only somebody with the childish intelligence level of Reagan and his followers could promote then buying university economics departments and teaching it as a "science".

Buyers "willing to purchase" ? How about "forced to purchase" in economic systems controlled by oligopolies ? What choices do people have while shopping in supermarkets competing on the stockmarkets for the biggest profits to keep their insatiable investors ? Every time we go, prices are higher, while more staff is fired, or cut back to minimum wage part time.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

Thanks again Calumny
Insightful and a damned good read!
After reading some of the responses here I wonder if they read the article, probably not.
The authors have done their home work.
The section ‘For today and tomorrow’ ought to be seared into all consumers’ brains
“We should not conclude from this that the struggle to save humanity and the planet is lost. The rulers of the world, the ‘masters of the universe’ are indeed in charge, and their power appears unassailable to many of us. But it is also clear that they are afraid of challenges to their power. We know this precisely because they spend so much time and effort - so much discussion, institutional and organizational activity in attempting to combat challenges to their rule. Their intelligence services, their police, their propaganda, their advertising and marketing, their think tanks, their lobbyists, their media, and yes, their military, are frantically busy trying to counter progress, peace and democracy. What are they afraid of? The only other superpower on the planet: public opinion. “
The question has been asked what are the afraid of” and answered with the call to arms of public opinion
Bernays was a masterful propagandist and it is through his genius a waste item became a commodity; pork bellies became the North American breakfast of choice for millions upon millions of people
Try and get your head around that!
That is the power of propaganda!
I have said before, perhaps not here, that for the average man on the street to enjoy a decent standard of living those of us who care must study what the ‘masters of the universe’ employ to get their messages ingrained in the mind and emulate it.
Do what works!
Stop doing what does not work; repeatedly doing what does not work longer, harder and with more intention will not get the job done. Will it?

Dio


---
"There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."
Alfred Korzybski

Again, a mixed economy, whereby a government has the backbone to intervene and redistribute the wealth more equitably is the solution. If nobody was starving or doing wthout; if everyone had equal access to health care and education; if all could live in peace and in a dignified manner, then I wouldn`t care who is a billionaire. But of course, when the world`s 500 billionaires have more wealth than half of the world`s population, there`s a problem. Not to mention, governments have to have the bravery to set up strict environmental standards as well, because the current model of capitalism on steroids is not sustainable.

---
Dave Ruston

All empires in history have gone that one fatal step too far and self destructed, as we can witness and document the self destruction process today. Unfortunately, they also destroy efficient, worthwhile economic systems, cultures and societies both on their way up and down. Between 1945 and 85 I've spent 40 years seeking the "common denominator of history's tragedies" and found it in 1985 in an economics textbook in the false definition of economic efficiency, which through human history has always been defined as "the biggest thieves are the most efficient, blessed by the gods, therefore more power to them". The neoclassical,competitive market economy version is the legalization of crime, taught in our universities as good, fiscally responsible economics.

They're using fraudulent calculations, like the GDP, Growth and Productivity figures, plus the distorted words of past prophets like Smith, Ricardo, et al, to justify criminal behavour and environmental destruction. The way Friedman and his followers quote Adam Smith's self interest and invisible hand theory is a form of criminal conspiracy to defraud.

Propaganda is the rape of minds and no ruling economic system has depended more on the poison of propaganda than the present one, with all governments on the bandwagon, trying to outdo each other in selling their peoples. Many departments in our universities have also become vast propaganda machines. No longer the centres of learning, but of brainwashing. Only last year I saw a petition signed by some 1500 professors across North America, protesting the growing corporate influence and stranglehold on their universities, while the administrations are begging for more.

I've been writing for years that, e.g. the advertising barrage on TV is not designed to sell soap and cars, but a sick ideology and economic system. I'm happy to see that more and more people are beginning to wake up, realizing that we're on a bandwagon careening downhill, out of control.

The question now is, what will happen when the inevitable crash comes? What will take its place ? More violence and destruction by new rulers, or the real Age of Enlightenment?
I may not see it, but we've been working on ecologically sustainable economic production systems for almost 30 years by now and know that they can be done. We also hope, for the sake of humanity, that they will be by a more intelligent generation. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

Thanks, Diogenes.

It may be that not all of those making comments may have read the article. This doesn't really matter because neither it nor anything else is likely to change their views.

I've noticed that some who like to accuse others of 'seeing only what they want to see' tend to follow this pattern themselves, and choose to ignore and/or deride any information that appears to contradict their views. Perhaps that is part of the 'human nature' to which some like to refer.

As concerns human nature, most of us are aware that there are examples of societies that functioned along different lines than our own. This suggests that 'human nature' is not as fixed as some suggest, nor that it necessarily lends itself naturally to neoliberal economics. Regardless, there are many aspects of the 'human nature' of some at least that through the centuries have been recognized as not being beneficial to society as a whole and have in consequence been discouraged.

I think it's safe to say every human society has had to contend with those who actively seek to acquire more than what most would consider their fair share and have few scruples in doing whatever it takes to accomplish the same.

Getting back to 'human nature', most of us, whether of western or eastern extraction, come from a background in which a notion that some were entitled to more than others solely by dint of whatever justification fit the applicable time, whether that be 'God given' right or some other, was for centuries promoted and reinforced. It's difficult to get beyond conditioning that proposes the natural right of a few to make the decisions for all and in consequence be deserving of a greater share of the pie than the majority. So, how much of what we do and accept today is a result of 'human nature' as opposed to societal conditioning is from my perspective arguable.

In earlier times, anyone questioning the desirability or rightness of a 'I deserve more than everyone else for reasons that might not seem valid to everyone else' status quo could be termed a 'traitor to the crown', or whatever other label fit the circumstances, and dispensed with fairly quickly. History indicates quite a bit of dispensing being done through the centuries as there have always been those who questioned the legitimacy and desirability of the status quo.

These day, the same person get tagged a 'socialist', 'statist', etc., however in a democratic society it isn't as easy to dispense with these 'traitors' as might have been true in earlier times.

For some, it might just seem easier to dispense with the 'annoyance' of democracy.

The basic difficulty we face is that many still do not understand what democracy is should be and their place, duties and power within the same.

Democracy should allow citizens to decide what rules are required in society to best maintain the health of that society. One of these is determining on an individual basis how much is too much.

A nation's economy should be subordinate to that nation's, in our case democratic, political system, not vice versa, and function in a manner which best meets the current, short and long term needs of the citizen's of that nation.

It's par for the course that any questioning of neoliberal economics is met with accusations of 'wanting to take something from others to support the shiftless, etc.', ignoring or obfuscating the fact that the real question is directed towards the right of a few to take from the many in ways, for purposes and using methods that may not accord to the good of that many and whether allowing the same provides any overall benefit to society, not the right of the individual to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

And the arguments always start from the presumption that what we have now is good and desired by most, any change would involve significant loss by most and for all intents and purposes there is not possible alternative that can deliver better 'value' to the majority, none of which are necessarily true or provable.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and based on their particular world view some will argue the individual's 'right' to grabbing whatever share of the pie they believe themselves deserving of until the cow's come home. They're entitled to this opinion and if they choose to believe that anyone questioning the same is a 'socialist', etc., rather than just someone with an alternative view, that's their right. There's nothing to be gained in arguing the point with those whose presumptions are fixed or whose well-being depends on the continuing expansion of the status quo.

What often seem forgotten is that it would be easier for many questioning the wisdom in continuing along the neoliberal path to just ignore the matter entirely. Many of those asking questions aren't socialists with a capitalist chip on their shoulder, being rather just regular folks asking if this is what they really want for themselves and their descendants and exactly what overall good is coming out of it for them.

However, in a democratic society, it is the majority opinion that counts. And if there comes a time that the majority of people decide that the neoliberal economic desires of some should be reigned in to whatever extent is desirable, then that is what will happen.

And, that's the source of the 'fear' mentioned in the article, the fact that the emperor is not wearing any clothes and in a democracy the people have the right and ability to state the same.



---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

Wow!

Where to start?

In other (better?) words altogether an almost overwhelming piece for a ‘thank you’

“It may be that not all of those making comments may have read the article. This doesn't really matter because neither it nor anything else is likely to change their views.

I've noticed that some who like to accuse others of 'seeing only what they want to see' tend to follow this pattern themselves, and choose to ignore and/or deride any information that appears to contradict their views. Perhaps that is part of the 'human nature' to which some like to refer.”


Not to be augmentative merely for the sake of argument, but rather to further the discussion I will offer the following observations-

There is a possibility of a degree of correctness in your observations Calumny.
Your opening paragraph is a powerful claim, on the face of it, but, I suggest to you that it does ‘really matter’.
It really matters to the degree that there exists propaganda mills for the very reason to “change their views”.

I too am aware of the almost fixed in place attitude of the ‘seeing only what they want to see’ syndrome and as such must exercise caution lest I fall into the same trap. My point being that self awareness and introspection can be gained and applied so as to guard against that which is called human nature.

While I was reading you options on economies these counter-examples sprang to mind.
Mondragon, Spain

Emilio-Romagna, Italy

Buffalo Counsels

Potlatches

Co-op’s

Anyway, there are as many possibilities as folks are willing to consider


---
"There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."
Alfred Korzybski

"You got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

-- George W. Bush

---
RickW