Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

I wanted to respond to this but since ekg locked the thread I couldn't in it's original thread, but I thought Chuck made a thoughtful post worth responding to:


No surprise I disagree with this.  If you're in business for profit, you are in it for exactly the right reasons.  But I think Chuck views it as a bug in the system, rather than a feature.  As Adam Smith said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

And that's the great thing about Capitalism, it works even if you're in it for your own selfish reasons.  Market economics work because they are based on human nature and function just like any natural system.  A good analogy would be nature.  Nature, as a system, works.  Not because worms, birds, trees, and badgers are all trying to come up with a five year plan to make it work, but because each part of nature, just doing what it does according to it's own nature, together creates a natural system that functions.  

But if you disagree with the basis of our economic system, as it appears that you do, where does that leave you?  Since I've been on the other board, I've been able to debate a wide variety of liberals and leftists, from people who's politics would be at about Clinton "New Democrat" to Communists of differing stripes.  So there are liberals who agree with our system and just want to tweek it, and leftists who want to totally destroy it replace it with an all encompassing Communist state.  You, seem further left than the tweekers, since you totally disagree with the idea of profit centered capitalism, but you don't strike me as a destroy-everything communist either.  The problem is, for leftist who hate Capitalism but also hate communism, you don't seem to have anything to be for, you only know what you are against.

The middle ground for that would seem to me to be a system in which businesses are regulated like public utilities.  So there would be some private property rights, but much more limited than what we have in our system.  However for historical reasons that model has fallen out of favor.

So I know what you are against, but what type of system would you favor?  What is that middle way between free market capitalism, and Communism that you seem to want, but have not really defined?

It's not just you, there are plenty of people on the left who are against what we have, but don't seem to have a system that they favor.

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQASrwwunIhOX6C2MC_v6UEzlR4nBc1ErjioHN6rOvDrmHEhos5)


the assumptions you make are so egregiously wrong that I always have to go back and re-read where you think you came up with it over and over again.. just so that I can try and find where in the hell you come up with this crap... But I simply can't see what would bring you to make such an error..



but you don't know anything of the sort. You read something and it gets so distorted that what you 'get' out of is way off to the other side of what was meant..  I can't for the life of me understand how or why you do that..



I don't believe that at all..   The problem 'lefties' have with capitalism the 'greed' factor.. and that's plainly what Chuck is talking about.. Greed to extreme. Some greed is good in a society, extreme greed to point of tipping the balance towards a few at the detriment of the many is not in any way a good thing. My question is,why do you think it is? Why are you happy with this tilt? You must know that it can't benefit a true capitalistic society because once it tips too far to the extreme percent it winds up destroying itself... because the market isn't 'free' if only a select few are playing without rules

I'm not so sure assigning nature based equilibrium, to a man made concept is entirely fitting.  Since we seem to be ignoring, actually encouraging, introducing perturbations into the *environment* of capitalism, which are deliberately influencing the economy in an unbalancing capacity.   

Although, it's fair to say that chaos theory exists, within natural settings that have little or no dramatic shifts that would seem to introduce or attract such.  The chaos that can and does exist in nature isn't a purposeful introduction or purposeful manipulation of the resources and life within the system, with a goal in mind.  It is chaos, for chaos' sake.  Ascribing an *environment* to capitalism suggests a natural order, with changes due to periodic fluctuations and chaos, devoid of intent.  Intent is where any comparison or perceived similarities see the two diverge from likeness.  Intent is control.  The ability to manipulate the environment for desired results.  Volcano's, tsunamis, epidemics, hurricanes, floods, drought, asteroids, comets, out of control fires, enormous solar flares, an exploding star to close to our solar system, mass extinction, ect., ect. have control over us whether we like it or not...THAT by proxy can affect capitalism and that's as close to *natural* as the concept overlaps.  Everything else, the structure, the intricacy, the chaos, is the manipulation of the concept for a desired result.

In our current capitalistic environment there is an intentional restructuring of the system.  A purposeful, mindful manipulation of the system that is creating chaos, for a preferred goal.  Any depicted similarities between capitalism and an *environment*, is again, wishing to assign neutral naturalistic forces ( as when *market forces* are attributed nature like qualities) to a human made, human controlled concept of commerce.  There is no impartiality of the *free market* at work here.  It is anything but.  What we have, at the moment, are lions eating gazelles, not because they're hungry, not because they need to to survive, but simply because they can. The more, the merrier. They can't get enough. One gazelle isn't enough, lets kill 10, 15.  They're life sustaining meat will rot by not being consumed and we sure as hell won't be letting the other meat eaters have any, but who cares. We'll keep taking it, because we can. Not because we need to...but because we can. 

There is no over arching need to accumulate so much against the overall *environments* benefit. There is no impersonal, naturalistic behavior of nonaligned/unbiased *forces* at work.  It is simply out of control greed attempting to morally justify itself, through a perversion of individual freedoms, where the wants of the one, outweigh the needs of the many. (pointy eared, green blooded hobgoblin respects to Mr. Spock)

Those are all Obama's fault. Or God's retribution for us electing a buhlack man.

badda bing.

 ;D

Well see, that's interesting too.  You don't see economics as a system, but more like chaos.  And of course, if you have chaos, you need someone or some thing to establish order.  So clearly within your worldview, there really isn't such thing as "market forces" or Smith's invisible hand.  It's all anarchy of strong against weak until someone comes in and does something about it.

I'm not sure where you are going with the statement, "a perversion of individual freedoms."  You've dropped hints that liberty is at best a secondary consideration when it comes to what's an important social good.  I'm just not sure how far you go with that.  Is that something you're still working out or do you know and don't want to say?

Oh, and by the 3rd movie they had completely dropped the idea of the needs of the many...blah blah blah. 

Well, it's not *natural*.  It's neither neutral nor benign on it's own.  It is what we decide it is.  If we decide commerce will benefit few, at the expense of many...that's what it is.  If we decide commerce is more beneficial to society at large...that's what it is.  It's not naturalistic.  If it were, the lions would be starving right now, because their gluttony depleted their resources, yet they can operate outside of capitalism using a specific form of engineered commerce, outside of the *environment*, and are doing pretty fucking good.  They can do this, because our commerce allows and rewards them to get more, for less, regardless of the cost at home.  Now we're pretending we're going to re-engineer other elements within capitalism to try and mop up the mess, but in reality, it's a parlor trick and they'll drag this conversation out until doomsday and won't address anything until they absolutely have too.  I mean why would they? Some people are making incredible fucking fortunes

They take their work abroad, pay little, reap much but their homeland suffers.  This is not seen as a deficit, but rather astute business acumen.  This is not seen as counter productive to the homelands stability, but rather as the obvious business choice.  It circumvents the touted theme of commerce/capitalism, which always insists that it's good for everyone involved.  Our current reality suggests otherwise, and a more accurate description might be, "it's good for some, a crap shoot for everyone else."  Life has no guarantees, this is true...but a concept is what we decide it is...no more, no less.  If you make it more gamble oriented, that's what it is.  If you make it more oriented towards societal benefits, that's what it is.  It doesn't move in any direction, other than the direction we steer it.  This is true the world over.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be other countries free of our predicaments. They chose the path their commerce would take, they are not stagnate nor closed off and they chose not to chase King Solomon's wealth for an unstable society.

And actually, by the end of movie number two, Kirk was already giving the finger to Spock's comment, because you know that muther f'er was already plotting for his own desires.

Well that does seem to confirm that you do regard the market as chaos rather than a system.

So... how would you like society organized, at least as far as economics goes, if not one based on a free market driven by the profit motive?

Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part, but the alternatives that have actually been tried have not worked out so well.  So getting past what you are against, what are you for?

I think you misunderstand me...or perhaps I'm just shitty at communication (which is probably the case).

I'm all for making every stink'in dime you can possibly make...but don't do it at the detriment to the community, both locally and nationally.  I'm against destructive capitalism, not capitalism.  Capitalism that forsakes everything for the bottom line is just out of control greed, no matter how it's dressed up.

See...Mike thinks different. His definition of capitalism is that it, like Spock, a corporation cannot have human emotions, like greed. If a capitalistic entity had human qualities, it would be able to direct stuff like elections and donate huge sums of capitalistic money to candidates who's sole intent is to further the greed.


Oh.

Wait.

Nevahmind!


Speaking of greed and corporate personalities, guess who Goldman (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/us/politics/close-ties-to-goldman-enrich-romneys-public-and-private-lives.html?_r=1) Sachs is sleeping with? Kinda makes Newt's whores pale in comparison, huh?



Wow. $367k? It's actually $369 now. To put that in perspective (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000085&cycle=2012), that's waaaay more than the second place finisher, the esteemed Kirsten Gillibrand, at 52k, or the third place Marco Rubio (he of many dubious financial dealings himself) at 51k, or the president at a little over 50k.

I think you're right, I'm not really understanding you.  I'm trying to connect this statement, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons" with this one, "I'm all for making every stink'in dime you can possibly make."  You're caveat, "but don't do it at the detriment to the community, both locally and nationally," is maddenly vague.  So how do those guidelines apply in the real world?  Make a profit, but never fire anyone or try to make your operations more efficient...  That's why I said at the beginning of this thread that it's much easier to tell what you're against than what you're for.

try taking that quote in the context it was given...


and then apply it to the other


if you cannot see that he is saying the same thing in both, that out of control greed is not capitalism and it's not 'good' for anyone, then you're simply arguing for arguments sake. .. or more likely trying to get a 'a-ha' statement out of him that you can use out of context against him in the future..

uselesslegs

The press, the machine, the railway, the telegraph are premises whose thousand-year conclusion no one has yet dared to draw.
Friedrich Nietzsche

But assuming the same premises, to wit, that all men are equal by the law of nature and of nations, the right of property in slaves falls to the ground; for one who is equal to another cannot be the owner or property of that other.
William H. Seward


JFK also said that pursuing a false premise is more dangerous than the pursuit of a lie, to paraphrase.

Crony capitalism is closer to crony monopolization. Greed and human nature failed the ideal that the people should choose these things through the elected. A graph of productivity of American's from the 1970's until present would show a steady rise which equals a great profit for those who employ them. The commensurable hourly wage and salaries would show an extremely disproportionate line.

One example of how I observe the abominations of so called facts spouted by the corporate controlled media.

I don't have a good answer except that the people of each country should run that country along with the vast wasteful departments of gov being completely eliminated. An outside org that could be transparent in having no political ties could develop software to the various devices where people use the internet for the people to have a regular yay/nay on everything. Completely possible. Nothing close will ever happen.

If it comes off disconnected or idealistic, it's because you're applying absolutes to what I'm saying.  Of course people can and will be released (fired) from companies/businesses.  If it's what's required as the only alternative of mismanaged practices or an ever turbulent part of commerce not expected.  Heck, it could be the employee themselves (and is quite frequently) that signs their own walking papers through ineptness or douche baggery.

You're equating all aspects of profit (motives, origins, pursuit of) as one defining single paradigm that ultimately has no other purpose than the bottom line, *whatever* that entails...as if its a sentient force unable to be anything other than what it is...and we're all along for a ride on the tail ...subject completely to it's whim.

That's the type of static rhetoric that excludes all other realities, even when you're living it and its brought us to this point...as it has before.  It's just barely a 100 years and we're fighting tooth and nail to repeat our previous financial explosion...except now, it's global.

Abstract reasoning!

I  don't think it comes off as particularly idealistic, but disconnected; yes.  I'm trying to connect your rejection of the profit motive with a viable alternative as opposed to merely a rejection of the status quo.  I didn't expect you to object to crappy employees being fired.  The other employees are glad those guys are gone.  But for example if a company finds that they can buy a software program for a price cheaper than their average employee's bi weekly wage, and it can replace 12 employees, what is the ethical boss to do?

You've stated that "You're employees are counting on you to have their best interests as part of the overall reasoning for success.  If they're viewed as just a necessary evil that can be expunged if it's more profitable to just gut and collapse their workplace for resale, insurance money, bankruptcy...you're in it for the wrong reasons."  So should the boss not buy the software program, and purposely keep those employees on the job, or is there a fiduciary responsibility to have efficient and profitable, operations?

I'm not rejecting the profit motive, never have.  Making a profit AND a stable society and citizenry aren't mutually exclusive, unless you're going to set up a dynamic that MAKES them mutually exclusive and solidify that exclusivity by defining a concept (capitalism/commerce) in absolute terms.

"9 billion dollars is a hell of a fucking profit! Our companies sound, our employees are happy, our economies stable and we project 11 billion by next year!"

"9 billion dollars is a hell of a fucking profit!  BUT, we could have made 12 billion if we moved our operations overseas, paid those employees much much less, added to the destabilization of our homeland stability and we project 15 billion by next year!"

We're at a crossroads, at this point in our history.  Do we use a concept to better our society and it's citizenry or do we use a concept to justify absolutes that derail society and it's citizenry?

Greed can be a good motivator.  Heck, it can even be behind innovation, technology, goods and services when it comes to commerce...but greed devoid of any other intentions, than greed, is a run away destructive force that ALWAYS eventually has detrimental consequences.

Well the way I read your initial post was that you did reject the profit motive.  Although at this point I should ask, why not?  I quoted Adam Smith in my first post to show how everyone's "greed" satisfies what everyone wants and creates an economic system.    But you implicitedly rejected the concept of any such system didn't recognize anything in the least bit natural as to how a market works.

So given that, why tolerate the profit motive?  I mean, what do you require to have a "stable society and citizenry?"  Can you conceive of a way of doing that without the profit motive?

Criticism is not an unequivocal indictment. It can be in some instances, but I'm not rebuking the whole of capitalism. I never was.  I can criticize (even heavily) many things and that's not a pronouncement of patent dismantling of, or revocation of, that which I take issue with.

I think you see any criticism as an entire incrimination and that's not what I've been saying.  I thought, in-between my babbling (my apologies), my entire undercurrent was how I was heavily criticizing destructive capitalism, not capitalism.  They are separate. Perhaps to you, they are not...and if that's the case...then we're not going to find any middle ground for discourse.

It's not just any criticism, it's the specific criticism you made about the basis of the capitalist system, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons."

All I was saying is that those are exactly the right reasons to be in business.  You see it as a bug, I see it as a feature.  It's not like you were making a critique of this or that feature, but the very basis of capitalism.  So I don't think it's unfair of me to ask, what is your alternative to the profit motive, if you don't feel that people should be in business for profit?

The last time the intrinsic greed of capitalism teetered towards plutocracy ended with congressional hearings on the White House Putsch. This country is rapidly heading towards it again if the greed isn't stopped.

Sure...make all the money you want. Fuck over your employees all you want. Downsize all you want. Outsource all you want. It'll come around and bite you in the ass some day...

huh... so you do do this to other ppl..

ya know, run them into the ground until there is nothing left but insults and anger because you can't seem to take the answers they've given you, ad nauseam .. ..

always digging for that 'gotcha' aren't you...

That particular quote of mine, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons", was my admonishment of the practices, like those at Bain, where purposeful gutting at the expense of employees who didn't HAVE to be let go, or unnecessary company *restructuring*, or a host of other procedures that took place, were done specifically to not stabilize the company for the long term...but to stabilize it long enough, polish it up enough, to roll it over for cash.  Company bankruptcy or jobs be damned.  The pay off is the prize.  That lines the pockets of a few, at the expense of not only the company that's now gone, but of the workers who's livelihood were intertwined with the company...and by proxy the community or town.  Now, let's move onto the next "venture."

You're being absolute about a concept and treating any critique as an impurity that changes it to such a degree, that it now must be replaced or doesn't resemble what it use to...so what is my replacement? I don't want to replace it.  I want it to work for society, not at it's expense.  The augmentation I suggest does not kill capitalism, it stops capitalism from ravaging economies for personal enrichment at the expense of society, while STILL offering undreamed up profits that only the very few will still experience.

Does it not count as capitalism unless there's rampant fraudulent pursuits of profit? Does it not count as capitalism unless workers are fired for the singular purpose of profit...and not a companies actual viability at stake or employee ineptness?

I think I've made myself pretty clear through this back and forth.  Capitalism is an instrument, a concept...a tool.  As I've said before, it is exactly what we allow it to be.  It does not take on any form, other than that which we permit.

It's no different than a needle.  We can use it to inject things which are good or we can use it to inject poison.  The needle has zero say, it is merely the delivery device.

There is no "gotcha" here.  And there isn't any insults or anger either.  At least from my end.  If Chuck is angry at me or has insulted me, he's been rather subtle about it.  I know why you are angry and insulting... because you do it and can't conceive of anyone else not responding that way.  I'm just trying to dig deep and have a substantive conversation on this board.  You seem to be struggling against that.

How do you know that the people that Bain let go didn't have to be let go?  That's a pretty high level accounting call I would think.  Most people who have a job depend on the livelihood it provides and would be devastated if they lost their job.  I know I would, and  I don't doubt that was true for the people who worked for the companies Bain restructured.  But I don't know how you (and I mean you, not the accountants who vett the numbers) determine that Bain got rid of too many jobs.  For any company, including healthy ones that are not being restructured, the right number of employees is the number that provides value.  That's not a personal call on what the job means to the employee, it's what the employee can do for the company.


I don't think I'm being absolute, but I don't see what sort of reforms or changes you want to implement that would provide what you want, which seems to be some other governing principle besides profit for capitalism.  I mean, what is the augmentation that allow that?



Where do you draw the line between honest profits and "rampant fraudulent pursuits of profit?"  Somewhere you have a pretty good idea of where that line is, but I don't think you've expressed it in a way that could be useful guide for business or government.

hahahahha... I can't believe that went over your head like that.

I didn't say there were insults... I said you like to wear people down with your 'kazziness'... until nothing left but insults and anger because you can't seem to take the answers they've given you, ad nauseam .. . nothing in that implies there was anger or insults yet..

Chuck has said he's ok with capitalism.. only to have you continue to ask "what would you change it to since you don't like capitalism"

you're in Kaz-bot mode and looking for something from him to hold over him at a later date...and until you get that, you'll continue to 'bot' him...

it's pure money that you would go straight to the insults when answering me tho...

Wait. Didn't he just say this?


He would nevah insult!

Meanwhile (not that he needs it) more in support of Chuck:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/whats-at-stake-in-fridays-jobs-report/?hp


In retrospect, I guess I should have bolded everything...

Sounds like class warfare to me.

ah, you mean a big company taking over another smaller company with investor's money... then using that small company's assets to take out a massive loan, and the big company using that loan to pay themselves and calling it cap gains so that they are only taxed at 15%... all the while having the leveraged smaller company being the responsible party to the loan.. and when they can't pay it, they are forced to file for bankruptcy and close up shop 2 years or so later?.. with the original investors to the buyout losing their investments as well? not too mention all the employee of that smaller company losing their jobs?

well if you don't agree with that, then you're just a communist..

Yea, pretty much EXACTLY like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0d7ybWn7xc&feature=player_embedded

Sigh.  I'm not sure why you posted that Bain post that you cribbed from TPM since you locked the Bain thread.  But it doesn't address why I started the thread.  I want to know what Chuck's alternatives were, and you have been determined to shut that down for some reason.  You really don't want a substantial discussion on this forum.

Maybe this is just the wrong place for a substantial discussion.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over