Capitalist ethos

[Tridimity]

Well, that again is up to the elected representatives. Here in the UK I seem to recall a couple of years ago we have referendum on - I think it was called - an AV system. I also seem to recall it was defeated by a substantial figure. The people expressed their view, and in simple terms, they didn't want it.

 

 

That's just the point - it is up to the elected representatives to present us (the electorate) with options for changing the electoral system - in reality we live in an indirect democracy in which such options are not presented. In order for your assertion that "the people have the option if they wish. If they don't, it is because they don't want it" to hold true you would first need to qualify it with the phrase 'majority of people' (since there will always be a minority of individuals who disagree). You would then need to prove that the views of the majority are represented adequately under our electoral systems - which they are not.

 

As for the 2011 AV referendum:

i. AV is not PR and PR was not presented by the elected representatives as an option to the electorate

ii. There was no opportunity for a white vote; the figures fail to represent those who wish for neither FPTP nor AV and those who perhaps want AV but do not trust in politicians to deliver the goods; or those who do not understand the choice or are not sufficiently engaged in Politics as to realise that to vote AV would be in their interests.

iii. Turnout was just 42.2% - 68% of those voted against AV/to keep FPTP. The upshot is that 28.7% of the electorate voted to keep FPTP rather than to change to AV. It takes a fairly big leap of the imagination to say that this equates to "the people don't want PR".

[overtone]

 

 

Well, obviously I don't know in absolute terms, it was just my assumption.

And obviously your assumptions - any of the several on display in thsi thread - are based in near total ignorance. This is despite the many paragraphs of posting and so forth available to you as evidence.

 

Never mind "absolute terms": You don't know in any terms, for two obvious reasons: you have no reality based notion of the policies, ideals, values, or even espousings, of current US political Parties and factions, in particular no familiartiy with their history regarding capitalism (or any history regarding captialism) ; and you have a hard time comprehending ideals, ideas, or values, of people better informed than you about actual US political operations and the role of capitalism in the economies of the world.

[Delbert]

 

...(since there will always be a minority of individuals who disagree).

Yes, I'll have to make a note of that one: some people will disagree. One learns a little every day.

 

And obviously your assumptions - any of the several on display in thsi thread - are based in near total ignorance.

Oh dear, you've spotted it. I've got a distinguished service medal in ignorance.

 

I prostrate myself at the base of your elevated high altar of intellectual certainty.

[Tridimity]

Yes, I'll have to make a note of that one: some people will disagree. One learns a little every day.

 

Then shall we leave your argument as it was, I wouldn't mind knocking it down in one blow.

 

I notice that you didn't respond to any of the other points I made... what's up with that? Too busy learning about electoral systems to reply?

[Tridimity]

Excellent TED talk on crony capitalism and the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor presented by Chrystia Freeland

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/chrystia_freeland_the_rise_of_the_new_global_super_rich.html

[Delbert]

Excellent TED talk on crony capitalism and the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor presented by Chrystia Freeland

I don't agree with what see says (I didn't play it all because I found it overly predictable and repetitive), but just for argument's sake, what's the alternative? That is, something that can be summed up in about three to four sentences (no links to long drawn out eulogies about perceived injustices).

 

So I can do as Tridimity says: I can knock it down in one blow.

[john5746]

I don't agree with what see says (I didn't play it all because I found it overly predictable and repetitive), but just for argument's sake, what's the alternative? That is, something that can be summed up in about three to four sentences (no links to long drawn out eulogies about perceived injustices).

An alternative to keeping your head stuck in a hole, while waving your arse to everyone? Pull it out.

[Tridimity]

I don't agree with what see says (I didn't play it all because I found it overly predictable and repetitive), but just for argument's sake, what's the alternative? That is, something that can be summed up in about three to four sentences (no links to long drawn out eulogies about perceived injustices).

 

So I can do as Tridimity says: I can knock it down in one blow.

 

 

 

Alternative: for a start, have the major multinational companies pay a fair rate of tax - let's face it, for the likes of Starbucks, any payment of tax whatsoever would be a huge improvement

 

 

Coffee giant Starbucks has paid £5m in UK corporation tax - its first such tax payment since 2009 - the company has announced. A company spokeswoman said it had listened to its customers and would pay another £5m later this year.

The move follows pressure from politicians and campaigners, and an agreement by world leaders last week to clamp down on corporate tax avoidance. Starbucks has only reported taxable profit once in 15 years in the UK. It announced late last year it would pay more corporation tax after a public outcry and an investigation by MPs. "We listened to our customers in December and so decided to forgo certain deductions which would make us liable to pay £10m in corporation tax this year and a further £10m in 2014," a Starbucks spokeswoman said.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514

Edited November 25, 2013 by Tridimity

[Delbert]

 

Alternative: for a start, have the major multinational companies pay a fair rate of tax - let's face it, for the likes of Starbucks, any payment of tax whatsoever would be a huge improvement

Well, from what I understand of that situation, they haven't, and aren't breaking any law.

 

But like so many things, at the time it was all wonderful - like the a previous chancellor here in the UK who indicated upon opening a London branch of Lehman's bank that he'd like to be able to run the UK economy like Lehman's run their bank!! And we all know what happened to Lehman's when they nearly brought the world economy down. And don't forget it was a socialist chancellor.

 

Anyway, returning to your tax query, from what I gather it's now in the public eye, and so the law may be changed - democracy in operation. Mind you, there may also be a price to pay if the relevant companies then change their policies!

 

But returning to my query, as far as I can see your reply isn't a description of an alternative system in a few sentences. After all, Darwin's theory of evolution can be described in a few words. A few words around survival and natural selection.

 

 

An alternative to keeping your head stuck in a hole, while waving your arse to everyone? Pull it out.

Sounds like you have the knowledge and experience gained by having found yourself performing such gymnastics.

[Tridimity]

Well, from what I understand of that situation, they haven't, and aren't breaking any law.

 

 

And the executioners in Nazi Germany were not breaking the law of their own regime. So what’s your point?

 

But returning to my query, as far as I can see your reply isn't a description of an alternative system in a few sentences.

 

 

 

I’m not suggesting an overthrow of the current capitalist systems in the West – just modifications to make the systems more humane. That regulation seems to be currently lacking.

 

FYI Gordon Brown may be socialist by your standards (anybody would be), but he was not a hardcore leftist, in reality it would be more accurate to describe his policies as centre-left. I think New Labour was an attempt at kind capitalism but it turned out to be insufficiently kind in practice.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Tridimity

[Delbert]

 

And the executioners in Nazi Germany were not breaking the law of their own regime. So what’s your point?

My point is as I said, as far as I'm aware they were and are not breaking any law - nothing more than that. Every law abiding citizen does that.

 

Now, if you're saying that that is the same or similar to how Nazi Germany operated, then I'm sorry but that's a ludicrous viewpoint. Presumably, the conclusion is that anyone operating within the law could be reinterpreted by someone else with such a perpendicular view as operating like Nazi Germany! Quite frankly that's an outrageous interpretation to the point of hyperbole on hyperbole.

 

 

I’m not suggesting an overthrow of the current capitalist systems in the West – just modifications to make the systems more humane. That regulation seems to be currently lacking.

More humane! So presumably it's currently inhumane? Again, an outrageous view.

 

FYI Gordon Brown may be socialist by your standards (anybody would be), but he was not a hardcore leftist, in reality it would be more accurate to describe his policies as centre-left. I think New Labour was an attempt at kind capitalism but it turned out to be insufficiently kind in practice.

Socialist wouldn't be the word I would use. I refrain from expressing a view, because it would be unprintable.

 

If all the response to my query is mud slinging, then this is a pointless discussion.

[ralfy]

What we have today, especially given unregulated derivatives with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars, is the effect of free market capitalism. This should not be surprising as, given the New Scientist article shared earlier, much of the credit of the global economy is controlled only by a few powerful corporations. This also explains why the U.S. government bailed out Wall Street banks, as Wall Street, especially through the Fed (which is a private consortium of commercial banks) controls the money supply of the country.

 

Will governments regulate these corporations? Likely not given such conditions and government reliance on continuous economic growth for tax revenues. This also explains why most do not want to talk about predicaments such as peak oil and global warming, as the belief is that the same free market capitalism will allow for innovation leading to efficiency and more resources available, thus rendering these predicaments meaningless.

 

Meanwhile, the truth is that there has been no recovery from the 2008 financial crash, the world is now resorting to unconventional oil as crude oil production has been in plateau, and that more scientific organizations are warning of more problems involving global warming. With that, the continued existence of the three predicaments of debt-ridden economic crisis, peak oil, and global warming coupled with environmental damage is assured.

[Tridimity]

My point is as I said, as far as I'm aware they were and are not breaking any law - nothing more than that. Every law abiding citizen does that.

 

“Every law abiding citizen does [not break the law]”

 

Pointless truism – it is true by definition.

 

 

Now, if you're saying that that is the same or similar to how Nazi Germany operated, then I'm sorry but that's a ludicrous viewpoint. Presumably, the conclusion is that anyone operating within the law could be reinterpreted by someone else with such a perpendicular view as operating like Nazi Germany! Quite frankly that's an outrageous interpretation to the point of hyperbole on hyperbole.

 

 

I’m saying: legality does not always equate with morality. Legal systems can beget evil outcomes as in Nazi Germany in the form of persecution of the Jews and as in our capitalist societies with the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor.

 

 

More humane! So presumably it's currently inhumane? Again, an outrageous view.

 

 

Perhaps you should look into learning about the electromagnetic spectrum. There is more than black and white. More humane as in increasing the current extent of humaneness. Aspects of the current capitalist system are inhumane - see the very opening case in point at the beginning of this thread.

Now RBS are being investigated to see if they willfully destroyed the prospects of small businesses:

RBS put some "good and viable" businesses into default so it could make more profit, it is claimed in a report by government adviser Lawrence Tomlinson to be released on Monday. Business Secretary Vince Cable has referred the report to City regulators for investigation. RBS said it was already committed to an investigation into customer treatment. The bank said in a statement: "In the boom years leading up to the financial crisis, the over-heated property development market became a major threat to the UK economy. "RBS did more than its fair share to fuel this and commercial property lending was one of the key drivers of our near collapse as valuations rapidly plummeted.

Your outrage is misplaced - you ought to be outraged on behalf of the victims of these capitalist schemes not shooting the messenger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25082512

If all the response to my query is mud slinging, then this is a pointless discussion.

 

The exchanges between you and I are pointless anyway.

[overtone]

 

 

That is, something that can be summed up in about three to four sentences (no links to long drawn out eulogies about perceived injustices).

How about this, for starters: A return to the legal and regulatory and taxation arrangements that paid for several major wars on top of the largest increase in wealth and quality of life ever seen on the planet, between 1930 and 1980 in the US.

[Delbert]

 

Will governments regulate these corporations? Likely not given such conditions and government reliance on continuous economic growth for tax revenues.

Of course not, because they need the revenue to finance the freebies they offer at election time - to quote the blindingly obvious. And the money has to come from somewhere. Again, as I tried to indicate previously, it's up to the voters to choose. I suggest if someone came along and said we can't do this because we wouldn't be able to finance it without encouraging and turning a blind eye to a bit of questionable banking, they probably wouldn't get a single vote.

 

Look what happened here in the UK at the last election. I understand one particular party offered free university tuition. Oh yes, we'll have a bit of that without giving any consideration as to how much it would cost and whether the country could afford it. And then after the election it had to be dropped, doubtless for the simple reason there wasn't enough money!

 

As you say, revenue has to be obtained, obtained to finance things offered to curry votes - we choose. We get the government we deserve.

 

 

Pointless truism – it is true by definition.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're on about. You elaborate by making an outrageous comparison of it to Nazi Germany, and the say it's a pointless truism! Your talking in riddles my friend.

 

 

Now RBS are being investigated to see if they willfully destroyed the prospects of small businesses:

Yes, if true it is certainly outrageous and needs to be dealt with by due process.

[Tridimity]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're on about. You elaborate by making an outrageous comparison of it to Nazi Germany, and the say it's a pointless truism! Your talking in riddles my friend.

 

 

The point of the comparison to Nazi Germany was to illustrate the fact that individuals and institutions within that regime and, likewise, within our contemporary capitalist systems in the West, may be operating within the limits of the law (e.g. tax avoidance by MNCs) and yet may still result in evil outcomes (impoverishment of the lower classes). Legality does not guarantee morality.

 

The 'pointless truism' comment was separate to the above and was made in reference to your statement that 'law abiding citizens... do not break the law'.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Tridimity

[Delbert]

 

The point of the comparison to Nazi Germany was to illustrate the fact that individuals and institutions within that regime and, likewise, within our contemporary capitalist systems in the West, may be operating within the limits of the law (e.g. tax avoidance by MNCs) and yet may still result in evil outcomes (impoverishment of the lower classes). Legality does not guarantee morality.

The situation and consequence you refer is a law that's been drafted by our elected representatives - to curry votes mayhap?

 

It appears that I'm not getting through here, the system is the voice of the votes of the organism formed of the populous. How else would you say the system and the resultant decisions should be so decided or taken?

 

Presumably your view is things need to be changed. Right, starting from day one we change things to be in keeping with your ideals. So what happens on day two (or whatever day(s) later) following a free election that might well result in an administration with policies contrary to your views?

 

As I see it, the only way to guarantee your ideals are permanent (as permanent as can be), is to have some sort of inviolate legislation that a future administration can't rescind. If that's the case, then, I have to tell you, it would be nothing more than an authoritarian dictatorship.

 

What did I see on the TV the other day... ...a company allegedly exploiting its workforce. In fact encouraged to set up their business by the administration. They even built a new road for them! And following the TV prog, how many people will not now be buying products from them? Not many I wager, especially with their cheap prices.

 

Anyway, do you pay more tax than you really have to?

[Tridimity]

The situation and consequence you refer is a law that's been drafted by our elected representatives - to curry votes mayhap?

 

 

“To curry votes mayhap?” What do you mean here?

 

It appears that I'm not getting through here, the system is the voice of the votes of the organism formed of the populous. How else would you say the system and the resultant decisions should be so decided or taken?

 

 

Your message, that the capitalist systems are the result of democratic processes and so are mandated, was received. While this is true to some extent, the non-black/white reality is that we are living in indirect democracies in which the electorate are only able to exert a measure of power by voting for or against options put forth by the elected representatives. Moreover, citizens must choose come election time between whole parties and manifestos (which may or may not be borne out in reality). For example, party A may stand for capitalism, protection of the environment and pro-fox hunting. Party B may stand for communism, prioritisation of economic wellbeing over the environment, and anti-fox hunting. If I am an ardent communist who believes in protection of the environment and am pro-fox hunting, there is no one party that will adequately represent my wishes. I may choose party A since this fulfils most of my criteria, but the election of a capitalist candidate does not reflect my true wishes. Most seats in the UK are safe anyhow and the effect is to increase the relative worth of those voters sitting in marginal seats. This would not be the case under PR – under PR, number of seats are directly proportional to votes and so are a true reflection of the wishes of the electorate. Hence – I would advocate PR over FPTP.

 

Presumably your view is things need to be changed. Right, starting from day one we change things to be in keeping with your ideals. So what happens on day two (or whatever day(s) later) following a free election that might well result in an administration with policies contrary to your views?

 

 

Look, politically I am left-liberal. I agree that our countries out to be democratic but the changes I would seek would be to make the democracy direct rather than the current indirect democracy. PR not FPTP.

 

As I see it, the only way to guarantee your ideals are permanent (as permanent as can be), is to have some sort of inviolate legislation that a future administration can't rescind. If that's the case, then, I have to tell you, it would be nothing more than an authoritarian dictatorship.

 

 

Um, I know this. I am still advocating democracy – direct democracy. The majority of the country are either working class, lower middle class or dependent on social welfare. If direct democracy were a reality, the overwhelming majority of our elected representatives would be leftists. To the Deuce with the 1%!

 

What did I see on the TV the other day... ...a company allegedly exploiting its workforce. In fact encouraged to set up their business by the administration. They even built a new road for them! And following the TV prog, how many people will not now be buying products from them? Not many I wager, especially with their cheap prices.

 

 

i. More people than you expect may boycott the exploitative business

ii. The customers would not have to hunt around for bargains like that if they were being paid fairly for their labour. That’s the point of capitalism – nobody on the bottom rungs is paid fairly for their labour nor receives fair working conditions. The CEO fat cats receive more than they deserve – the profit feeds upwards and stagnates there until the lower rungs can no longer support the demands of the throned ones.

iii. Ergo we need to transform to an economic system that pays and treats employees fairly. I can just imagine how outraged you are going to feel about this. I can hear you now. “Fair working conditions! Outrageous! Simply preposterous!” Hahaha.

 

Anyway, do you pay more tax than you really have to?

 

 

No I pay the amount set by government which is approximately 1/3 of my income. This level proves sustainable so I wouldn’t want it any other way.

[Delbert]

 

“To curry votes mayhap?” What do you mean here?

To get or encourage people to vote for them.

 

 

For example, party A may stand for capitalism, protection of the environment and pro-fox hunting. Party B may stand for communism, prioritisation of economic wellbeing over the environment, and anti-fox hunting. If I am an ardent communist who believes in protection of the environment and am pro-fox hunting, there is no one party that will adequately represent my wishes.

I suggest that will always be the case whatever system in operation. There's an awful lot of things I don't like about what I end up voting for. I agree, we all end up voting for a ragbag of policies, but as said, it seems that every and any system humans could envisage will be the same - we all like and dislike different things.

 

And as for this direct democracy business, it seems like a system that nobody knows from one moment to the other what on earth is going on and no one will be in charge.

 

 

 

 

 

i. More people than you expect may boycott the exploitative business

ii. The customers would not have to hunt around for bargains like that if they were being paid fairly for their labour. That’s the point of capitalism – nobody on the bottom rungs is paid fairly for their labour nor receives fair working conditions. The CEO fat cats receive more than they deserve – the profit feeds upwards and stagnates there until the lower rungs can no longer support the demands of the throned ones.

iii. Ergo we need to transform to an economic system that pays and treats employees fairly. I can just imagine how outraged you are going to feel about this. I can hear you now. “Fair working conditions! Outrageous! Simply preposterous!” Hahaha.

 

i) I would be very surprised if there were a large number. And what's more, I'd wager they'd probably only do it for five minutes before returning for the bargains!

ii) Not quite sure what you're saying. As far as I can tell people will always hunt for a bargain - everybody and their dogs in fact! That's why the company has been successful (I use that word in terms of business).

iii) Don't think I've ever indicated and certainly never said any such thing. All I'm saying is the only acceptable system is democracy, and yes, a free press.

 

Democracy is a fluid system like a mechanical or electronic servo system (sorry about such an analogy, but my life and work is into such systems), whereby it will correct for errors or changing circumstance. Sometimes it might take time, but it will correct. But for it to work properly it also needs a free press. Yes, I know the press has had a bad press recently, but without it I suggest peccadillos by those in charge and others may be hidden from view, which I would seriously undermine democracy. And what do I hear? The left (that's the word they seem to use to describe themselves) want to place it under some sort of political control! Well of course they do because their dream is tight state control of everything to be in accordance with their wishes.

[overtone]

 

 

And what do I hear? The left (that's the word they seem to use to describe themselves) want to place it under some sort of political control!

The only source of that silliness would be the captive media of the authoritarian rightwing propagandists. Why do you believe what such sources claim?

 

 

 

Well of course they do because their dream is tight state control of everything to be in accordance with their wishes.

The libertarian left has been trying very hard to prevent the authoritarian right from getting control of State power in this country. You might want to look into helping them.

 

Meanwhile, you asked for a short, simple, description of an alternative to the current rightwing rolling disaster - one was provided, in post 89. It's not an ideal or progressive alternative, but it is a completely realistic improvement already demonstrated to work.

[Delbert]

The only source of that silliness would be the captive media of the authoritarian rightwing propagandists. Why do you believe what such sources claim?

Again, I think you're missing the point. People buy the newspapers - period. Newspapers fill their pages with what people buy - it's as simple as that. Political control is nothing but oppressive authoritarian control and censorship.

 

And how about left wing propagandists? They're the ones who apparently want political control - 'underpinned by legislation', is, I believe, the phrase they used. Which is state control by any other name. And of course, the wording would be vague such that editors would tossing a coins as to whether to print an article or not - so to be safe they don't. And the populous would end up with bland articles, with misdemeanours in high office or business being unreported. To state the blindingly obvious.

 

Meanwhile, you asked for a short, simple, description of an alternative to the current rightwing rolling disaster - one was provided, in post 89. It's not an ideal or progressive alternative, but it is a completely realistic improvement already demonstrated to work.

As you said, that was in wartime.

 

Okay, the left wing as you call it takes over. How does such an ideology create, maintain and encourage desire and aspiration? Something which I think was evident with extreme versions of left wing socialist regimes, which have since fallen.

 

Life is not easy - we all know that. For example, it seems we all walk around these days with highly complex gadgets galore. And not only that, eagerly await the next new model sporting evermore exotic functions. And what did I see in the news the other day about one country where these very complex devices are designed and made, the suicide rate is now very high - even among children at school I think it said. So with that news I take it you will be discarding any such gadgets you might have. I bet you won't, and neither will others of similar political persuasion. In which case it seems to me you will be directly maintaining their high pressure lifestyle whereby success is doubtless the only measure, which surely must be contrary to your ideology.

 

You talk about a 'living wage' (your words) - whatever that is. Indeed, I think you once said that a company that was unable to offer said wage should not be in operation. Well okay, for arguments sake we'll go along with that. So, on the same principle you won't be buying any goods in the shops that are too cheap and not priced at a decent living amount! In case you've missed it, that's the other side of the equation. Because that's input side where the money comes to pay for not only overheads but to enable it to go out in the output side as a 'living wage' (your words).

Edited December 3, 2013 by Delbert