Jump to content

Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)


Nebraska
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, scumtron said:

I would recommend The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy Snyder. A good but chilling read. The premise is that Russia has limited potential for economic growth, and with this knowledge, the main strategy is to try to destabilize other countries. Examples from Ukraine, Brexit and the US election.

Thank you. Maybe the growth paradigm is the wrong way in the first place. Why not grow in some areas (benus), and degrow in others with social and ecological justice in mind and then work towards keeping a satisfactory status quo? Doesn't work within a "free" market, though (a market free to exploit). Shitpiss world economy

2 hours ago, markedone said:

Some parallels to Mexico, on paper this country is actually realtively wealthy, but absurd level of inequality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico

The current president here ran on cutting corruption, and while i dont think he personally is corrupt (he has the right intentions) the way corruption can erode all levels of society is a problem that one person cannot solve, at least not in the short term like he promises.

I heard that in Mexico prisoners don't get any food but are dependant on family members bringing them food or other prisoners giving it to them. An extreme example of an inequal society. Interestingly it's such societies that are the most violent. In countries where everyone is poor there is less violence than in countries where there are also rich people. South Africa is a perfect example. It's richer than the neighbouring Botsuana but the rate of killings is higher, because there is more economic inequality.

55 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Why blame capitalism? Blame corruption and a system of kleptocracy.

Because accumulation of capital is non-elected power. Capitalism leads to kleptocracy, even if it's contained through a functioning state of law and functional laws. But laws that function as a containment of unbridled capital accumulation can be eroded by existing capital accumulations because they can be used to influence the law and make it dysfunctional in terms of containment of capital accumulation. Capital accumulations should be used for the common good and a capitalist market logic doesn't function on the principle of common good but on mere maximisation of profits.

Edited by dingformung
  • Like 3
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hilarious stuff here...donnie rambles on incoherently about how doctors are "amazed" at how smart he is:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/23/trump-mental-fitness-cognitive-test-379622

Quote

President Donald Trump on Wednesday defended his mental fitness to hold office and described the exam he allegedly took assessing his cognitive capabilities, claiming the doctors administering it were amazed by his ability to recall a simple string of words.

 

The president said the doctors had warned him “nobody gets it in order,” and he assessed that “it’s actually not that easy. But for me, it was easy.” Trump also emphasized that the medical professionals administering the exam “don’t tell you” they plan on asking patients to repeat the word series, and said they were impressed by him doing so.

“‘Can you do it?’ And you go, ‘Person, woman, man, camera, TV,’” Trump said. “They say, ‘That’s amazing, how did you do that?’ I do it because I have, like, a good memory. Because I’m cognitively there.”

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, dingformung said:

Capitalism leads to kleptocracy, even if it's contained through a functioning state of law and functional laws. But laws that function as a containment of unbridled capital accumulation can be eroded by existing capital accumulations because they can be used to influence the law and make it dysfunctional in terms of containment of capital accumulation. Capital accumulations should be used for the common good and a capitalist market logic doesn't function on the principle of common good but on mere maximisation of profits.

Which is why implementation is important. So you have countries like Japan, South Korea, France, Austria, Sweden, even Canada and Germany, as examples of countries which are capitalist in much of their functionality, but have much less in the way of wealth inequality because they have strong regulatory bodies that curtail the excesses of oligarchs to a large degree (although certainly Korean conglomerates have a lot of power - but that's a topic for a separate discussion). And these countries all have high quality of life because on top capitalist market structures, they implement socialist policies to support citizens.

Your assertion that there can only be one type of capitalism is a bit off the mark. I know it's an easy bogey man, but as usual, there is a lot of nuance to the subject, but when you make the statement that "capitalism leads to kleptocracy" you are actually affirming the consequent. There are many factors in both developing kleptocracy (many kleptocracies were never capitalist) and regulating capitalism to avert society becoming a kleptocracy.

1 hour ago, milkface said:
1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

Why blame capitalism? Blame corruption and a system of kleptocracy.

lol

Good answer. Much debate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chenGOD said:

Good answer. Much debate.

No need for debate because ding pretty much hit the nail on the head. Accumulation of capital inherently leads to corruption and some people being above the law.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, milkface said:

Accumulation of capital inherently leads to corruption and some people being above the law.

Except for in all those cases where it doesn't. But sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chenGOD said:

Except for in all those cases where it doesn't. But sure.

That's because you can't see it happen from where you are and besides lobbying, whilst not legally corruption, is corruption in my eyes.

Edited by milkface
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

What does that even mean.

What I'm saying is that capitalism is as transparent as tar and you never know what is really going on. Why do you think financial controversies only come to light decades later?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, milkface said:

What I'm saying is that capitalism is as transparent as tar and you never know what is really going on. Why do you think financial controversies only come to light decades later?

In countries where you don't have strong regulatory bodies, corruption is a significant issue. In countries where there is a strong, well-funded, independent judiciary, you don't have this issue as much.

To be clear, I'm not saying there are no problems with capitalism. I am saying that the statement "capitalism always leads to kleptocracy" is incorrect, because there are many examples that counter that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Which is why implementation is important. So you have countries like Japan, South Korea, France, Austria, Sweden, even Canada and Germany, as examples of countries which are capitalist in much of their functionality, but have much less in the way of wealth inequality because they have strong regulatory bodies that curtail the excesses of oligarchs to a large degree (although certainly Korean conglomerates have a lot of power - but that's a topic for a separate discussion). And these countries all have high quality of life because on top capitalist market structures, they implement socialist policies to support citizens.

Your assertion that there can only be one type of capitalism is a bit off the mark. I know it's an easy bogey man, but as usual, there is a lot of nuance to the subject, but when you make the statement that "capitalism leads to kleptocracy" you are actually affirming the consequent. There are many factors in both developing kleptocracy (many kleptocracies were never capitalist) and regulating capitalism to avert society becoming a kleptocracy.

agree with this, the implementation is way more important than the rhetoric. because the corollary to the competant social-democracy examples you gave are the 'leftist' autocratic politicians in latin america who talk game about helping people but then do the bare minimum to essentially buy votes and then hoard money to the top.  both are capitalist, but the impelementation is entirely different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

In countries where you don't have strong regulatory bodies, corruption is a significant issue. In countries where there is a strong, well-funded, independent judiciary, you don't have this issue as much.

To be clear, I'm not saying there are no problems with capitalism. I am saying that the statement "capitalism always leads to kleptocracy" is incorrect, because there are many examples that counter that.

Yeah but as profits rise and salaries stay stagnant, more and more wealth accumulates at the top. Laws and regulations are all well and good but can easily be overturned with a single new elected government.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Which is why implementation is important. So you have countries like Japan, South Korea, France, Austria, Sweden, even Canada and Germany, as examples of countries which are capitalist in much of their functionality, but have much less in the way of wealth inequality because they have strong regulatory bodies that curtail the excesses of oligarchs to a large degree (although certainly Korean conglomerates have a lot of power - but that's a topic for a separate discussion). And these countries all have high quality of life because on top capitalist market structures, they implement socialist policies to support citizens.

Your assertion that there can only be one type of capitalism is a bit off the mark. I know it's an easy bogey man, but as usual, there is a lot of nuance to the subject, but when you make the statement that "capitalism leads to kleptocracy" you are actually affirming the consequent. There are many factors in both developing kleptocracy (many kleptocracies were never capitalist) and regulating capitalism to avert society becoming a kleptocracy.

- The fact that some capitalist economies exist within a nation state that offers welfare and a minimum living standard doesn't mean that there is no kleptocracy and exploitation. Usually accumulators of capital profit from a halfway healthy population and lower levels of violence so welfare fits into the scheme of profit maximisation and kleptocracy.

- Even countries that offer welfare and a security web for the weak have people that fall through that web and whose basic needs aren't covered or whose human rights aren't respected. Research slavery in Europe. Even on German ground there are people imported to work in the meat industry that live in labour camp like barracks and do inhumane traumatising work and don't get paid minimum wage. Economic inequality makes this form of exploitation possible, all known forms of capitalism increase this sort of inequality.

- Countries that don't utilise people like that on their own soil outsource it elsewhere. Poverty and exploitation can be outsourced.

- Production chains are so long, indecipherable and globalised that no link of the chain has ever full responsibility which is a good basis for keeping immoral production running.

- In a capitalist world economy actors can easily evade the various states of law that mostly function on a national level, which makes extralegal business possible.

- Even if there was a global superstate that has a state of law and is democratic, elections can be influenced by influencing public opinion. Owners of wealth accumulation have the power and resources to hack public opinion and influence it in a way it benefits them. Surveillance capitalism increases this problem.

- A capitalist market logic functions on the principle of profit maximisation, not on a principle of common good and social and ecological responsibility. Ecological responsibility is a market disturbance.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, milkface said:

No need for debate because ding pretty much hit the nail on the head. Accumulation of capital inherently leads to corruption and some people being above the law.

That's pretty much inherent to all forms of society. Whether or not capitalistic. It was the norm before there was a thing such as capitalism. Arguably capitalism is one of the few systems to potentially present a solution. Again, potentially.

If you approach this from the Piketty perspective (capitalism leads to concentration of wealth and power if left unchecked), his solution is not to change the system, but to improve it by means of taxation/regulation. There is no alternative without concentration of power/wealth.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, goDel said:

There is no alternative without concentration of power/wealth.

Well if people in power were MUCH more accountable that'd be a hell of a start.

Edited by milkface
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, milkface said:

Well if people in power were MUCH more accountable that'd be a hell of a start.

yeah. true. it's hard to imagine a system where the truth will find its way out in a timely manner to make a difference in current events. 

according to some books capitalism is inherently racist, misogynistic and oppressive at its core. Asking for people to be accountable is counting on some kind of honor system where people call themselves out for being shitty which is laughable to expect imo though does happen sometimes right? but i guess it's more the exception than the rule. 

the USA could do a few things to nice up capitalism a fraction of a smidge.. like banning prison labor here in the states and stuff like that.. but yeah.. not getting my hopes up.  tilting at windmills and stuff. but we'll see what happens in november and if the pendulum swings back a bit towards some kind of more equitable society. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, dingformung said:

- The fact that some capitalist economies exist within a nation state that offers welfare and a minimum living standard doesn't mean that there is no kleptocracy and exploitation. Usually accumulators of capital profit from a halfway healthy population and lower levels of violence so welfare fits into the scheme of profit maximisation and kleptocracy.

- Even countries that offer welfare and a security web for the weak have people that fall through that web and whose basic needs aren't covered or whose human rights aren't respected. Research slavery in Europe. Even on German ground there are people imported to work in the meat industry that live in labour camp like barracks and do inhumane traumatising work and don't get paid minimum wage. Economic inequality makes this form of exploitation possible, all known forms of capitalism increase this sort of inequality.

- Countries that don't utilise people like that on their own soil outsource it elsewhere. Poverty and exploitation can be outsourced.

- Production chains are so long, indecipherable and globalised that no link of the chain has ever full responsibility which is a good basis for keeping immoral production running.

- In a capitalist world economy actors can easily evade the various states of law that mostly function on a national level, which makes extralegal business possible.

- Even if there was a global superstate that has a state of law and is democratic, elections can be influenced by influencing public opinion. Owners of wealth accumulation have the power and resources to hack public opinion and influence it in a way it benefits them. Surveillance capitalism increases this problem.

- A capitalist market logic functions on the principle of profit maximisation, not on a principle of common good and social and ecological responsibility. Ecological responsibility is a market disturbance.

My dude - what are you defining as kleptocracy? Because if you're just using to say that some people have access to more resources/assets than others, that's not something that exists only in capitalism. Your examples of modern-day slavery are not unique to capitalism, and exploitation of labour exists in socialist states.

Welfare capitalism and Eco-capitalism exist: you should look at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, milkface said:

Laws and regulations are all well and good but can easily be overturned with a single new elected government.

Please describe in an essay of no more than 5,000 words how that is unique to capitalism. Citations in either MLA or Chicago format.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Please describe in an essay of no more than 5,000 words how that is unique to capitalism. Citations in either MLA or Chicago format.

dont care. capitalism sucks donkey balls regardless. i never said it was unique i said it happened in it, along with the infinite amounts of other negative things that come along with capitalism

Edited by milkface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

My dude - what are you defining as kleptocracy? Because if you're just using to say that some people have access to more resources/assets than others, that's not something that exists only in capitalism. Your examples of modern-day slavery are not unique to capitalism, and exploitation of labour exists in socialist states.

Welfare capitalism and Eco-capitalism exist: you should look at them.

My dude

a) I never claimed it's unique to capitalism.

b) Welfare capitalism is no pure capitalism. The welfare part of it isn't the capitalistic part as long as said welfare doesn't solely serve the purpose of increasing capital accummulations (e.g. for creating a functional workforce).

c) Eco-capitalism doesn't exist anywhere if you have a closer look.

d) I didn't propose a different economic model, I just criticised the existing one.

e) Is anything I said wrong and not a symptom of capitalism?

 

Edited by dingformung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The socialist and communists states were/are corrupt as fuck. Basically to get some luxury goods, stop the police harassing you or even get medical care you need to be well connected or bribe someone.

In capitalist system you want something, what you need is enough money and then you go and buy it. There is generally nobody saying that you can't have this. It's unfair only in the sense that you may not have the money to buy it. In socialist system some official or bureaucrat can decide if you need it and they have the power to stop you from getting it unless you pay or pull them some favors. And you can't say "well, I go to buy it from your competitor" because the government owns everything. There is no other legal option, only possibly the black market.

Or let's say you go to a hospital in Cuba and expect free healthcare? Yes, in theory it's free but if you actually want someone to do a proper medical examination, take care of you, bring medicine or food you better fork out some cash or know someone at the hospital. It's the only way for the nurses and doctors to actually make money beyond just the sustenance. Same was with the Soviet Union.

In capitalism the power accumulates with money. In socialism the power accumulates more with connections and social status and the place in the power hierarchy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The socialist and communists states were/are corrupt as fuck. Basically to get some luxury goods, stop the police harassing you or even get medical care you need to be well connected or bribe someone.
In capitalist system you want something, what you need is enough money and then you go and buy it. There is generally nobody saying that you can't have this. It's unfair only in the sense that you may not have the money to buy it. In socialist system some official or bureaucrat can decide if you need it and they have the power to stop you from getting it unless you pay or pull them some favors. And you can't say "well, I go to buy it from your competitor" because the government owns everything. There is no other legal option, only possibly the black market.
Or let's say you go to a hospital in Cuba and expect free healthcare? Yes, in theory it's free but if you actually want someone to do a proper medical examination, take care of you, bring medicine or food you better fork out some cash or know someone at the hospital. It's the only way for the nurses and doctors to actually make money beyond just the sustenance. Same was with the Soviet Union.
In capitalism the power accumulates with money. In socialism the power accumulates more with connections and social status and the place in the power hierarchy.

What if I want weed but live in Alabama? ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ignatius said:


What if I want weed but live in Alabama? 😉


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You get it the same way you get it in Cuba :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zkom said:

The socialist and communists states were/are corrupt as fuck. Basically to get some luxury goods, stop the police harassing you or even get medical care you need to be well connected or bribe someone.

In capitalist system you want something, what you need is enough money and then you go and buy it. There is generally nobody saying that you can't have this. It's unfair only in the sense that you may not have the money to buy it. In socialist system some official or bureaucrat can decide if you need it and they have the power to stop you from getting it unless you pay or pull them some favors. And you can't say "well, I go to buy it from your competitor" because the government owns everything. There is no other legal option, only possibly the black market.

Or let's say you go to a hospital in Cuba and expect free healthcare? Yes, in theory it's free but if you actually want someone to do a proper medical examination, take care of you, bring medicine or food you better fork out some cash or know someone at the hospital. It's the only way for the nurses and doctors to actually make money beyond just the sustenance. Same was with the Soviet Union.

In capitalism the power accumulates with money. In socialism the power accumulates more with connections and social status and the place in the power hierarchy.

I don't think that anyone was defending the self-identifying socialist/communist dictatorships like the Soviet Union or China, or claimed that they are the only alternative to a capitalist model.

You describe life in a capitalist economy from the perspective of an average person living in an economically successful country. But there is also another side to it. Global trading relationships create a lot of poverty, inequality and even slavery while destroying the planet. It's not a sustainable, fair & ecological model and in its extreme manifestations undermines democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Squee changed the title to Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)
  • Rubin Farr changed the title to Now That Trump's President... (24 hours to go)
  • Squee locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...