Goldtent TA Paradise

Here’s a No Brainer Poll

1. Karl says:

   December 25, 2020 - 5:58 am at 5:58 am

   All due respects etc but this sort of thing is close to literal nonsense. Words now mean so many different things to different people.

   Sanders’s “socialism” is little more than FDR’s new-dealism or 60s “liberalism” – “liberalism” puffed up by a gasbag.

   People way to the left of Sanders have a hard time agreeing on how to use the word “socialism”, but to the extent they do, the way people in the US esp those on the right use the word “socialism” is often pretty much equivalent to the way people on the (real) left use the word “capitalism”.

   Marx in volume 1 of Capital noted that in capitalism successful capitalists will tend to buy out other capitalists. There or elsewhere he noted that successful capitalists will also use their influence with the State to strongarm other capitalists to increase influence via the State. Thus capital becomes more concentrated, and concomitantly the State may become more intrusive. It is not a steady state situation. It is as if it is working towards a concentration into a single focus of capital ruling from above. The general rule (different variations different places) is increasingly to have more control by fewer and fewer corporations and more and more control by the State, which works for them but does what it can to prevent rebellion (possibly handouts along with attempts to make the population as stupid and passive as possible etc). Its propaganda organs may call various versions of this situation “socialism”. It can come in many variations, and can have many names, and there will be lots of smoke and mirrors, but none of the versions will be too popular. The names will be distortions and dialogue will be nearly impossible. Dialogue will require work.

   Obviously I am presenting many books’ worth in a paragraph but I have to make coffee and do laundry and may not have time to explain adequately. I’ve left far too much out.

   • Karl says:

     December 25, 2020 - 6:01 am at 6:01 am

     P.S. Merry Christmas.

2. Karl says:

   December 25, 2020 - 7:12 am at 7:12 am

   P.P.S. When has “Market Capitalism” ever existed other than (maybe) transiently. Someone has always been buying out someone, monopolizing things, paying off the local sheriff to run the competition off, paying off the state senators and the gov, getting licenses to exploit the colonies etc, monopolizing, monopolizing, strongarming.

   And before the twits from the silly right wing institutes get the vapors, fake “socialism” and “the welfare state” is not a big deal for “capitalism”. Bismark had welfare state stuff. I’m not going to look the details up for you, but his gov’t had stuff like workers comp and I think even some basic medical care. Part of it was so that things could keep running for Capital as well as the State though part of it was to head off the Social Democratic Party. This was standard and no big deal.

   By the twits, I mean for example those people who want to sell you subscriptions because they are from some Institute that was named after some 2nd to 18th rated economist from the mid-20th century founded by some Rockefeller or someone to tout Free Markets and are so smart you will get rich from all their wisdom. These people are the right wing equivalent of the verministic apparatchiks of the leninist parties who have some useful things to tell you (maybe) but are when all is said and done gasbags and manipulators. Thinking for one’s self and organizing from below is the key. Things are bad enough without the crap from Experts from Institutes and leninists.

3. pedro_deleon says:

   December 25, 2020 - 11:09 am at 11:09 am

   “Someone has always been buying out someone, monopolizing things, paying off the local sheriff to run the competition off, paying off the state senators and the gov, getting licenses to exploit the colonies etc, monopolizing, monopolizing, strongarming.”

   Agree with you completely Karl. What society needs isn’t Market Capitalism, but Competitive Capitalism. When I worked in DC, my focus was in competition policy. Unfortunately, even back then, the decision making was driven by political pull. (At least then it was ruled by domestic parties, more or less.)

   That’s why I favor putting the burden on merging parties to prove benefits, and not DOJ/FTC to prove harm. And that still doesn’t go far enough. Time for Teddy to come back.

   I’d be calling for automatic divestitures over 25% market share, and legal inquiries below even that.

   • Hermit says:

     December 25, 2020 - 1:19 pm at 1:19 pm

     I agree Pedro. Time to fragment the market again and thereby spread the wealth. It doesn’t get simpler than that. To hell with efficiency. The population needs to work, needs a place to direct its energies. It’s so important for a healthy life.

4. YYZ says:

   December 25, 2020 - 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm

   What makes free market capitalism work is the common agreement to abide by the RULES (a Republic), that’s what separates a democratic republic from mob rule (pure democracy or pure capitalism). If you have someone like Marx characterizing a system of capitalism vs. someone like Adam Smith – you get two very different results.

   Smith assumed that the greatest benefit to parties in a market was a agreement on value/price (the invisible hand).
   Marx assumed that the greatest weakness of a market was the unequal status of parties determining value and thus results in predatorization.

   RULES are intended to address Marx’s concerns to achieve Smith’s goal toward fairness and accurate deterimination of fair value.

   The rules have been and are now fast-tracked into favoring Marx’s vision (starting with the Fed Reserve), thus encouraging the sales pitch that “Capitalism” has failed – which is has not – part of the LIE in disparaging capitalism is to avoid addressing the role the Fed and CB’s have played in skimming worker productivity in the form of interest rate management (too productive, raise rates, too much slack, lower rates) – a parasite/host arrangement.

   My favorite joke regarding academics and economists.

   “A physicist, a chemist, and an economist all stranded on a desert island. There is one can of food, but nothing to open it with. The physicist presents his proposed solution (usually hitting the can with a rock). The chemist presents his proposed solution (such as heating a seawater solution with the sun’s rays). The economist comes up with the simple, unrealistic solution: “Assume we have a can opener…”.

   This is why I pay little heed to economists and academics – few have ever had to experience the consequences of their ideas.

   Karl, I’ll admit I’m not nearly as well read as you are on such subjects so I’d welcome a rebuttle to these observations. Thanks.